Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2015, Vol. 2 Issue (4) : 295-310    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2015074
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Quantitative analysis of yield and soil water balance for summer maize on the piedmont of the North China Plain using AquaCrop
Jingjing WANG1,2, Feng HUANG1,2, Baoguo LI1,2()
1. Department of Soil and Water Science, College of Resources and Environment, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
2. Key Laboratory of Arable Land Conservation (North China), Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100193, China
 Download: PDF(2007 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The North China Plain (NCP) is a major grain production area in China, but the current winter wheat-summer maize system has resulted in a large water deficit. This water-shortage necessitates the improvement of crop water productivity in the NCP. A crop water model, AquaCrop, was adopted to investigate yield and water productivity (WP) for rain-fed summer maize on the piedmont of the NCP. The data sets to calibrate and validate the model were obtained from a 3-year (2011–2013) field experiment conducted on the Yanshan piedmont of the NCP. The range of root mean square error (RMSE) between the simulated and measured biomass was 0.67–1.25 t·hm−2, and that of relative error (RE) was 9.4%–15.4%, the coefficient of determination (R2) ranged from 0.992 to 0.994. The RMSE between the simulated and measured soil water storage at depth of 0–100 cm ranged from 4.09 to 4.39 mm; and RE and R2 in the range of 1.07%–1.20% and 0.880–0.997, respectively. The WP as measured by crop yield per unit evapotranspiration was 2.50–2.66 kg·m−3. The simulated impact of long-term climate (i.e., 1980–2010) and groundwater depth on crop yield and WP revealed that the higher yield and WP could be obtained in dry years in areas with capillary recharge from groundwater, and much lower values elsewhere. The simulation also suggested that supplementary irrigation in areas without capillary groundwater would not result in groundwater over-tapping since the precipitation can meet the water required by both maize and ecosystem, thus a beneficial outcome for both food and ecosystem security can be assured.
Keywords AquaCrop      summer maize      soil water balance      water productivity     
Corresponding Author(s): Baoguo LI   
Just Accepted Date: 20 November 2015   Issue Date: 19 January 2016
 Cite this article:   
Jingjing WANG,Feng HUANG,Baoguo LI. Quantitative analysis of yield and soil water balance for summer maize on the piedmont of the North China Plain using AquaCrop[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2015, 2(4): 295-310.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2015074
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2015/V2/I4/295
Depth/cm Texture Particle size composition/% BD/(g·cm−3) pH
Sand Silt Clay
0–5 Sandy loam 54.63 34.29 11.08 1.48 8.07
5–10 Sandy loam 60.19 28.60 11.21 1.47 8.05
10–20 Sandy loam 56.90 32.85 10.25 1.49 8.00
20–40 Loam 52.13 38.18 9.69 1.62 8.02
40–60 Sandy loam 61.56 31.75 6.69 1.62 8.02
60–80 Loam 52.86 39.11 8.03 1.59 7.68
80–100 Loam 50.99 41.27 7.73 1.53 7.49
Tab.1  Basic soil physical and chemical properties at experimental site (Shangzhuang Experimental Station, 116°10′E, 40°08′N)
Depth/cm qr/(cm3·cm−3) qf/ (cm3·cm−3) qs/ (cm3·cm−3) a n Ks/(cm·d−1)
0–5 0.093 0.261 0.458 0.09 1.29 55.034
5–10 0.073 0.236 0.418 0.08 1.33 53.892
10–20 0.070 0.252 0.440 0.10 1.32 61.318
20–40 0.077 0.259 0.393 0.04 1.40 65.938
40–60 0.069 0.249 0.390 0.02 1.56 99.382
60–80 0.073 0.279 0.440 0.03 1.37 81.022
80–100 0.064 0.245 0.437 0.01 1.84 83.606
Tab.2  Soil hydraulic parameters
Fig.1  Daily trends in environmental conditions at the experimental site from 2011 to 2013. Meteorological data includes daily precipitation (P); mean day time air temperature (T); daily potential evapotranspiration (ET0).
Year Planting date Emergence Max canopy Senescence Maturity CC0/% CCx/% CGC/% CDC/%
DAP
2011 6/25 6 54 86 108 0.39 92 16.6 13.7
2012 6/23 6 54 84 105 0.39 92 16.7 12
2013 7/1 6 59 80 97 0.36 92 15.2 13.8
Tab.3  Crop parameters used in AquaCrop model for summer maize simulation
Parameters Value Units Way of determination
Plant density 60606 Plants per hectare m
Maximum effective rooting depth (Zx) 1.00 m e
Base temperature 8 °C e
Cut-off temperature 30 °C e
Crop coefficient when canopy is complete but prior to senescence (KcTrx) 1.03 - d
Normalized crop water productivity (WP*) 30.70 g•m−2 c
Reference harvest index (HI0) 40 % c
Leaf growth threshold (Pexp, upper) 0.14 - d
Leaf growth threshold (Pexp, lower) 0.72 - d
Leaf growth stress coefficient curve shape 2.90 - d
Stomatal conductance threshold (Psto, upper) 0.69 - d
Stomata stress coefficient curve shape 6.00 - d
Senescence stress coefficient (Psen, upper) 0.69 - d
Senescence stress coefficient curve shape 2.70 - d
Curve number (CN) 65 - c
Readily evaporable water (REW) 8 mm c
Tab.4  Some relevant crop parameters used in the AquaCrop model for summer maize simulation
Fig.2  Simulated and measured above ground biomass dynamics summer maize in 2011, 2012, and 2013
Year Comparison Yield/( t•hm−2)
2011 Simulated 9.19
Measured 9.54
RE/% 3.67
2012 Simulated 8.14
Measured 8.78
RE/% 7.29
2013 Simulated 6.94
Measured 6.38
RE/% 8.78
Tab.5  Comparison of the simulated and measured maize yields from 2011 to 2013
Fig.3  Contour map of soil water content in 0–100cm soil profile in 2011, 2012, and 2013
Fig.4  Comparison of modeled with observed soil water storage in 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm, and 0–100 cm for summer maize cropping seasons in 2011, 2012, and 2013
Depth/cm 2011 2012 2013
RMSE/mm RE/% R2 RMSE/mm RE% R2 RMSE/mm RE/% R2
0–20 7.56 15.88 0.651 7.04 13.56 0.853 4.93 8.03 0.714
20–40 6.08 12.40 0.823 5.47 9.40 0.881 2.86 4.47 0.609
0–100 4.38 1.20 0.986 4.09 1.07 0.997 4.39 1.14 0.880
Tab.6  Comparison of the simulated and measured the soil water storage in the 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm, and 0–100 cm layers for the year from 2011 to 2013
Fig.5  Daily potential evaporation (E0) and actual evaporation (EC), daily potential transpiration (T0) and actual transpiration (TC), daily potential evapotranspiration (ET0) and actual evapotranspiration (ETC) in 2011, 2012, and 2013
Fig.6  Relationship between the ratio of actual daily evapotranspiration to the potential daily evapotranspiration (ETC/ET0) and the precipitation in 2011, 2012, and 2013
Year Date DSW/mm P/mm R/mm D/mm U/mm ET/mm E/mm T/mm
2011 (6.25–8.02) 123.80 266.70 43.30 0.00 14.30 113.90 88.40 25.50
(8.02–8.29) -33.40 83.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 116.50 8.00 108.50
(8.29–9.22) -19.60 64.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.60 4.10 79.50
(9.22–10.10) -31.10 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.30 0.20 31.10
Whole growth period 39.70 414.00 43.30 0.00 14.30 345.30 100.70 244.60
2012 (6.23–7.18) 86.40 202.50 30.40 7.90 0.00 77.80 72.60 5.20
(7.18–7.24) 94.60 238.60 100.30 27.90 0.00 15.80 10.90 4.90
(7.24–8.14) -25.60 126.10 23.70 56.70 0.00 71.30 12.40 58.90
(8.14–8-27) -66.20 1.30 0.00 15.50 0.00 52.00 1.10 50.90
(8.27–9.12) 64.10 84.60 8.10 0.00 37.90 50.30 1.40 48.90
(9.12–10.05) -58.80 10.70 0.00 11.70 0.00 57.80 3.40 54.40
Whole growth period 94.50 663.80 162.50 119.70 37.90 325.00 101.80 223.20
2013 (7.01–7.04) 13.00 11.60 0.00 0.00 14.90 13.50 13.50 0.00
(7.04–7.17) 18.90 84.40 12.50 10.20 0.00 42.80 42.40 0.40
(7.17–8.07) -37.60 36.70 0.00 17.20 0.00 57.10 41.40 15.70
(8.07–8.22) 1.10 28.80 0.00 0.00 22.00 49.70 7.90 41.80
(8.22–9.12) -4.40 67.80 1.30 5.00 0.00 65.90 4.60 61.30
(9.12–10.05) 19.30 43.10 0.30 0.00 15.20 38.70 5.40 33.30
Whole growth period 10.30 272.40 14.10 32.40 52.10 267.70 115.20 152.50
Tab.7  The soil water balance calculated for the entire summer maize growth period in 0–100 cm soil profile in 2011, 2012, and 2013
Fig.7  The growth season precipitation, effective accumulated temperature, sunshine hours over the simulated period (1980–2010), and the simulated maize water productivity and yield under no water stress conditions (groundwater table= 1.5 m)
Fig.8  The growth season precipitation, effective accumulated temperature, sunshine hours over the simulated period (1980–2010), and the simulated maize water productivity and yield under water stress conditions (groundwater table was as deep as possible)
1 T S Du, S Z Kang, X Y Zhang, J H Zhang. China’s food security is threatened by the unsustainable use of water resources in North and Northwest China. Food and Energy Security, 2014, 3(1): 7–18
https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.40
2 G B Fu, C M Liu, S L Chen, J L Hong. Investigating the conversion coefficients for free water surface evaporation of different evaporation pans. Hydrological Processes, 2004, 18(12): 2247–2262
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5526
3 Q X Fang, L Mab, T R Green, Q Yu, T D Wang, L R Ahuj. Water resources and water use efficiency in the North China Plain: current status and agronomic management options. Agricultural Water Management, 2010, 97(8): 1102–1116
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.01.008
4 W B Liu, G B Fu, C M Liu, X Y Song, R Ouyang. Projection of future rainfall for the North China Plain using two statistical downscaling models and its hydrological implications. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2013, 27(8): 1783–1797
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-0714-1
5 H Y Sun, X Y Zhang, S Y Chen, D Pei, C M Liu. Effects of harvest and sowing time on the performance of the rotation of winter wheat–summer maize in the North China Plain. Industrial Crops and Products, 2007, 25(3): 239–247
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.12.003
6 G B Fu, S P Charles, J J Yu, C M Liu. Decadal climatic variability, trends and future scenarios for the North China Plain. Journal of Climate, 2009, 22(8): 2111–2123
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2605.1
7 B G Li, S Q Peng. Chinese agricultural water report 1998–2007. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2009, 1–20 (in Chinese)
8 L Brown. Who will feed China?—Wake-up call for a small planet. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995
9 G K Heilig, G Fishcer, H van Velthuizen. Can China feed itself? —An analysis of China’s food prospects with special reference to water resources. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2000, 7(3): 153–172
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500009470038
10 F Huang, B G Li. Assessing grain crop water productivity of China using a hydro-model-coupled-statistics approach. Part I: method development and validation. Agricultural Water Management, 2010, 97(7): 1077–1092
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.02.016
11 J S Wallace, P J Gregory. Water resources and their use in food production systems. Aquatic Sciences, 2002, 64(4): 363–375
https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012592
12 J Zhang. China’s success in increasing per capita food production. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2011, 62(11): 3707–3711
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err132 pmid: 21551079
13 P Wang, X F Song, D M Han, Y H Zhang, B Zhang. Determination of evaporation, transpiration and deep percolation of summer corn and winter wheat after irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 2012, 105: 32–37
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.12.024
14 S Piao, P Ciais, Y Huang, Z Shen, S Peng, J Li, L Zhou, H Liu, Y Ma, Y Ding, P Friedlingstein, C Liu, K Tan, Y Yu, T Zhang, J Fang. The impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature, 2010, 467(7311): 43–51
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09364 pmid: 20811450
15 P M Zhai, X H Pan. Change in extreme temperature and precipitation over Northern China during the second half of the20th century. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2003, 58(Supplement): 1–10 (in Chinese)
16 P M Zhai, X B Zhang, H Wan, X H Pan. Trends in total precipitation and frequency of daily precipitation extremes over China. Journal of Climate, 2005, 18(7): 1096–1108
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-3318.1
17 B G Li, Y S Gong, Q Zuo. Application of dynamic models in soil water. Beijing: Science Press, 2000, 1–199 (in Chinese)
18 R B Matthews, M Rivington, S Muhammed, A C Newton, P D Hallett. Adapting crops and cro-pping systems to future climates to ensure food security: the role of crop modelling. Global Food Security, 2013, 2(1): 24–28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.009
19 A Soltani, G Hoogenboom. Assessing crop management options with crop simulation models based on generated weather data. Field Crops Research, 2007, 103(3): 198–207
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.06.003
20 E Vanuytrecht, D Raes, P Willems. Global sensitivity analysis of yield output from the water productivity model. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2014, 51: 323–332
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.10.017
21 R L McCown, G L Hammer, J N G Hargreaves, D P Holzworth, D M Freebairn. APSIM: a novel software system for model development, model testing and simulation in agricultural systems research. Agricultural Systems, 1996, 50(3): 255–271
https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(94)00055-V
22 J T Ritchie, D C Godwin, S Otter-Nacke. CERES–Wheat: a simulation model of wheat growth and development. Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 1985
23 M Smith. CROPWAT: a computer program for irrigation planning and management. Rome: FAO, 1992
24 D Raes, P Steduto, C Hsiao, E Fereres. AquaCrop version 3.1 plus reference manual. Rome: FAO, 2011
25 K A Wiyo, Z M Kasomekera, J Feyen. Effect of tied-ridging on soil water status of a maize crop under Malawi conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 2000, 45(2): 101–125
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(99)00103-1
26 FAO. AquaCrop: the FAO crop-model to simulate yield response to water. Available at FAO Website on October 1, 2010
27 H J Farahani, G Izzi, T Y Oweis. Parameterization and evaluation of the AquaCrop model for full and deficit irrigated cotton. Agronomy Journal, 2009, 101(3): 469–476
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0182s
28 T C Hsiao, L Heng, P Steduto, B Rojas-Lara, D Raes, E Fereres. AquaCrop: the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: III. Parameterization and testing for maize. Agronomy Journal, 2009, 101(3): 448–459
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0218s
29 D Raes, P Steduto, T C Hsiao, E Fereres. AquaCrop: the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description. Agronomy Journal, 2009, 101(3): 438–447
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0140s
30 P Steduto, T C Hsiao, D Raes, E Fereres. AquaCrop: the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agronomy Journal, 2009, 101(3): 426–437
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0139s
31 D Raes, P Steduto, T C Hsiao, E Fereres. AquaCrop reference manual (Version 4.0). Available at FAO Website on February 1, 2012
32 D R Rankine, J E Cohen, M A Taylor, A D Coy, L A Simpson, T Stephenson, J L Lawrence. Parameterizing the FAO AquaCrop model for rain-fed and irrigated field-grown sweet potato. Agronomy Journal, 2015, 107(1): 375–387
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj14.0287
33 L K Sam-Amoah, R O Darko, J D Owusu-Sekyere. Calibration and validation of AquaCrop for full and deficit irrigation of hot pepper. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 2013, 8(2): 175–178
34 S Geerts, D Raes, M Garcia, C Taboada, R Miranda, J Cusicanqui, T Mhizha, J Vacher. Modeling the potential for closing quinoa yield gaps under varying water availability in the Bolivian Altiplano. Agricultural Water Management, 2009, 96(11): 1652–1658
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.06.020
35 B Andarzian, M Bannayan, P Steduto, H Mazraeh, M E Barati, M A Barati, A Rahnama. Validation and testing of the AquaCrop model under full and deficit irrigated wheat production in Iran. Agricultural Water Management, 2011, 100(1): 1–8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.023
36 M A Iqbal, Y J Shen, R Stricevic, H W Pei, H Y Sun, E Amiri, A Penas, S D Rio. Evaluation of the FAO AquaCrop model for winter wheat on the North China Plain under deficit irrigation from field experiment to regional yield simulation. Agricultural Water Management, 2014, 135: 61–72
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.12.012
37 W Y Du, X K He, Z Shamaila, Z F Hu, A J Zeng, J Muller. Yield and biomass prediction testing of AquaCrop model for winter wheat. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2011, 42(4): 174–178 (in Chinese)
38 J Li, C Fu, S S Li, T N Zhang, W R Gu, T C Qiao, W Z Xu, Y S Lu, S Wei. The simulation for northeast spring wheat productivity based on the AquaCrop model and modeling verification. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2014, 33(2): 69–72 (in Chinese)
39 S Manasah. Mkhabela, Paul R, Bullock. Performance of the FAO AquaCrop model for wheat grain yield and soil moisture simulation in western Canada. Agricultural Water Management, 2012, 110: 16–24
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.03.009
40 I Farre, J M Faci. Comparative response of maize and sorghum to deficit irrigation in a Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management, 2006, 83: 135–143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.11.001
41 A Araya, S D Keesstra, L Stroosnijder. Simulating yield response to water of Teff (Eragrostistef) with FAO’s AquaCrop model. Field Crops Research, 2010, 116(1-2): 196–204
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.12.010
42 L K Heng, T Hsiao, S Evett, T Howell, P Steduto. Validating the FAO AquaCrop model for irrigated and water deficient field maize. Agronomy Journal, 2009, 101(3): 488–498
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0029xs
43 H Li, Y Liu, J B Cai, X M Mao. The applicability and application of AquaCrop model. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2011, 30(3): 28–33 (in Chinese)
44 V J Mebane, R L Day, J M Hamlett, J E Watson, G W Roth. Validating the FAO AquaCrop model for rain-fed maize in Pennsylvania. Agronomy Journal, 2013, 105(2): 419–427
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0337
45 I W Nyakudya, L Stroosnijde. Effect of rooting depth, plant density and planting date on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water use efficiency in semi-arid Zimbabwe: modelling with AquaCrop. Agricultural Water Management, 2014, 146: 280–296
46 N Zinyengere, T Mhizha, E Mashonjowa, B Chipindu, S Geerts, D Raes. Using seasonal climate forecasts to improve maize production decision support in Zimbabwe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2011, 151(12): 1792–1799
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.07.015
47 M Garcia-Vila, E Fereres. Combining the simulation crop model AquaCrop with an economic model for the optimization of irrigation management at farm level. European Journal of Agronomy, 2012, 36(1): 21–31
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.08.003
48 C K Kiptum, E C Kipkorir, T M Munyao, J M Ndambuki. Application of AquaCrop model in deficit irrigation management of cabbages in Keiyo Highlands. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 2013, 5(7): 360–369
49 J Wellens, D Raes, F Traore, A Denis, B Djaby, B Tychon. Performance assessment of the FAO AquaCrop model for irrigated cabbage on farmer plots in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Water Management, 2013, 127: 40–47
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.05.012
50 P Steduto, D Raes, T C Hsiao, E Fereres, L Heng, G Izzi, J Hoogeveen. AquaCrop: a new model for crop prediction under water deficit conditions. CIHEAM: Zaragoza Options Méditerranéennes: Series A, 2008, 285–292
51 J Doorenbos, A H Kassam. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. Rome, Italy, 1979
52 C T de Wit. Transpiration and crop yields. The Netherlands: Wageningen University, 1958, 1–88
53 R J Hanks. Yield and water-use relationships: an overview, Ch, 9. In Taylor H.M., Jordan W.R., Sinclair T.R. Limitations to efficient water use in crop production. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI, 1983, 393–411
54 C B Tanner, T R Sinclair. Efficient water use in crop production: research or re-search? Ch, 1. In H.M. Taylor, W.R. Jordan, and T.R. Sinclair (ed.). Limitations to efficient water use in crop production. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI, 1983, 1–27
55 P Steduto, T C Hsiao, E Fereres, D Raes. Crop yield response to water. Available at FAO Website on December 1, 2012
56 S B Idso, R J Reginato, R D Jackson, B A Kimball, F S Nakayama. The three stages of drying of a field soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1974, 38(5): 831–837
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1974.03615995003800050037x
57 R E Rallison. Origin and evolution of the SCS runoff equation. New York: ASCE, 1980, 912–924
58 T S Steenhuis, M Winchell, J Rossing, J A Zollweg, M F Walter. SCS runoff equation revisited for variable-source runoff areas. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 1995, 121(3): 234–238
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1995)121:3(234)
59 USDA. Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall. National Engineering Handbook, Washington DC, USA.Section 4 Hydrology, (Chapter 4), 1964, 1e24
60 D Raes. A summary simulation model of the water budget of a cropped soil. Leuven: KatholiekeUniversiteit Leuven University, 1982, 1–110
61 D Raes, H Lemmens, P Van Aelst, V Van den Bulcke, M Smith. IRSIS: irrigation scheduling information system. Leuven: Department of Land Management, 1988, 1: 1–199
62 D Raes, S Geerts, E Kipkorir, J Wellens, A Sahli. Simulation of yield decline as a result of water stress with a robust soil water balance model. Agricultural Water Management, 2006, 81(3): 335–357
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.04.006
63 P Janssens. Invloed van eenondiepe grondwatertafel op de planning van irrigaties voorintensieve-groenteteelt. Dissertation fot the Master Dgree. Leuven: K. U. Leuven University, 2006
64 C Belmans, J G Wesseling, R A Feddes. Simulation of the water balance of a cropped soil: SWATRE. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 1983, 63(3-4): 271–286
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(83)90045-8
65 R A Feddes, P J Kowalik, H Zaradny. Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Simulation Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen, Centre for agricultural publishing and documentation, the Netherlands. 1978
66 J C Hoogland, C Belmans, R A Feddes. Root water uptake model depending on soil water pressure heads and maximum water extraction rate. Acta Horticulturae, 1981, 119(119): 123–135
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1981.119.11
67 J R Philip. Evaporation, and moisture and heat fields in the soil. Journal of Meteorology, 1957, 14(4): 354–366
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1957)014<0354:EAMAHF>2.0.CO;2
68 J T Ritchie. Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water Resources Research, 1972, 8(5): 1204–1213
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR008i005p01204
69 J E Adams, G F Arkin, J T Ritchie. Influence of row spacing and straw mulch on first stage drying. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1976, 40(3): 436–442
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000030035x
70 F J Villalobos, E Fereres. Evaporation measurements beneath corn, cotton, and sunflower canopies. Agronomy Journal, 1990, 82(6): 1153–1159
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1990.00021962008200060026x
71 R G Allen, L S Pereira, D Raes, M Smith. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper no. 56. Rome: FAO, 1998, 1–300
72 P Steduto, T C Hsiao, E Fereres. On the conservative behavior of biomass water productivity. Irrigation Science, 2007, 25(3): 189–207
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-007-0064-1
73 A Klute, C Dirksen. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory methods. In: Klute A, ed, Methods of soil analysis. Part 1: physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd ed. ASA, WI, 1986, 687–732
74 A Klute. Water Retention: Laboratory Methods. In: Klute A, ed. Methods of soil analysis. Part 1: physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd edn. ASA, WI, 1986, 635–660.
75 A Blum. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 2005, 56(11): 1159–1168
https://doi.org/10.1071/AR05069
76 J L Hatfield, T J Sauer, J H Prueger. Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency: a review. Agronomy Journal, 2001, 93(2): 271–280
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.932271x
77 G Hussain, A A Al-Jaloud. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on water use efficiency of wheat in Saudi Arabia. Agricultural Water Management, 1995, 27(2): 143–153
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3774(95)91233-W
78 T R Sinclair, C B Tanner, J M Bennett. Water-use efficiency in crop production. Bioscience, 1984, 34(1): 36–40
https://doi.org/10.2307/1309424
79 C J Willmott. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1982, 63(11): 1309–1313
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1982)063<1309:SCOTEO>2.0.CO;2
80 C J Kat, P S Els. Validation metric based on relative error. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical, 2012, 18(5): 487–520
https://doi.org/10.1080/13873954.2012.663392
81 E B Early, W O McIlrath, R D Seif, R H Hageman. Effects of shade applied at different stages of plant development on corn (Zea mays) production. Crop Science, 1967, 7(2): 151–156
https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1967.0011183X000700020018x
82 Q Y Xue, J Wang, X P Cao, W Ma, L P Feng. Effect of sowing data and variety on growth and population characteristics of summer maize in North China Plain. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2012, 17(5): 30–38 (in Chinese)
83 Q F Guo, Q C Wang, L M Wang. China maize cultivation. Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 2004, 462–480 (in Chinese)
84 X Y Zhang, S Y Chen, H Y Sun, L W Shao, Y Z Wang. Changes in evapotranspiration over irrigated winter wheat and maize in North China Plain over three decades. Agricultural Water Management, 2011, 98(6): 1097–1104
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.02.003
85 E C Childs. The nonsteady state of the water table in drained land. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1960, 65(2): 780–782
https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ065i002p00780
86 Y H Yang, W Masataka, X Y Zhang, X H Hao, J Q Zhang. Estimation of groundwater use by crop production simulated by DSSAT-wheat and DSSAT-maize models in the piedmont region of the North China Plain. Hydrological Processes, 2006, 20(13): 2787–2802
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6071
[1] Di WU, Allan A. ANDALES, Hui YANG, Qing SUN, Shichao CHEN, Xiuwei GUO, Donghao LI, Taisheng DU. LINKING CROP WATER PRODUCTIVITY TO SOIL PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND MICROBIAL PROPERTIES[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(4): 545-558.
[2] La ZHUO, Arjen Y. HOEKSTRA. The effect of different agricultural management practices on irrigation efficiency, water use efficiency and green and blue water footprint[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(2): 185-194.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed