Usefulness of cultivar-level calibration of AquaCrop for vegetables depends on the crop and data availability

As a result of climate change, climatic extremes are expected to increase. For high-value crops like vegetables, irrigation is a potentially economically viable adaptation measure in western Europe. To optimally schedule irrigation, decision support systems based on crop models like AquaCrop are increasingly used by farmers. High value vegetable crops like cauliflower or spinach are grown in two distinct growth cycles per year and, additionally, have a high turnover rate of new varieties. To successfully deploy the AquaCrop model in a decision support system, it requires a robust calibration. However, it is not known whether parameters can be conserved over both growth periods, nor whether a cultivar dependent model calibration is always required. Furthermore, when data are collected from farmers’ fields, there are constraints in data availability and uncertainty. We collected data from commercial cauliflower and spinach fields in Belgium in 2019, 2020 and 2021 during different growing periods and of different cultivars. With the use of a Bayesian calibration, we confirmed the need for a condition or cultivar specific calibration for cauliflower, while for spinach, splitting the data per cultivar or pooling the data together did not improve uncertainty on the model simulations. However, due to uncertainties arising from field specific soil and weather conditions, or measurement errors from calibration data, real time field specific adjustments are advised to simulations when using AquaCrop as decision support tool. Remotely sensed or in situ ground data may be invaluable information to reduce uncertainty on model simulations.

[1]  A. Gobin,et al.  Estimating Yield from NDVI, Weather Data, and Soil Water Depletion for Sugar Beet and Potato in Northern Belgium , 2022, Water.

[2]  P. Lootens,et al.  Data collection design for calibration of crop models using practical identifiability analysis , 2021, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture.

[3]  Qi Jing,et al.  The chaos in calibrating crop models: Lessons learned from a multi-model calibration exercise , 2021, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  G. Hoogenboom,et al.  Comparison of three calibration methods for modeling rice phenology , 2020 .

[5]  R. Jiang,et al.  Evaluating the Effect of Groundwater Table on Summer Maize Growth Using the AquaCrop Model , 2019, Environmental Modeling & Assessment.

[6]  Roel Van Hoolst,et al.  Batch-processing of AquaCrop plug-in for rainfed maize using satellite derived Fractional Vegetation Cover data , 2019, Agricultural Water Management.

[7]  Taru Palosuo,et al.  Towards improved calibration of crop models – Where are we now and where should we go? , 2018 .

[8]  Pierre Defourny,et al.  Crowdsourcing for agricultural applications: A review of uses and opportunities for a farmsourcing approach , 2017, Comput. Electron. Agric..

[9]  James W. Jones,et al.  Accounting for both parameter and model structure uncertainty in crop model predictions of phenology: A case study on rice , 2017 .

[10]  Daniel Wallach,et al.  Estimating uncertainty in crop model predictions: Current situation and future prospects , 2017 .

[11]  M. Trnka,et al.  Variability in the water footprint of arable crop production across European regions , 2017 .

[12]  M. Trnka,et al.  Assessing Uncertainties of Water Footprints Using an Ensemble of Crop Growth Models on Winter Wheat , 2016 .

[13]  Luke Owen,et al.  Exploring the role of smartphone technology for citizen science in agriculture , 2016, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[14]  D. Lobell,et al.  A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation , 2014 .

[15]  Dirk Raes,et al.  Economic assessment at farm level of the implementation of deficit irrigation for quinoa production in the Southern Bolivian Altiplano. , 2013 .

[16]  M. Singh,et al.  Performance evaluation of AquaCrop model for maize crop in a semi-arid environment , 2012 .

[17]  Daniel Wallach,et al.  Crop Model Calibration: A Statistical Perspective , 2011 .

[18]  D. Raes,et al.  Using AquaCrop to derive deficit irrigation schedules , 2010 .

[19]  Sanford Weisberg,et al.  An R Companion to Applied Regression , 2010 .

[20]  Karline Soetaert,et al.  Inverse Modelling, Sensitivity and Monte Carlo Analysis in R Using Package FME , 2010 .

[21]  D. Raes,et al.  AquaCrop—The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: III. Parameterization and Testing for Maize , 2009 .

[22]  D. Raes,et al.  AquaCrop-The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: I. Concepts and Underlying Principles , 2009 .

[23]  D. Raes,et al.  AquaCrop — The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: II. Main Algorithms and Software Description , 2009 .

[24]  Andrea Saltelli,et al.  An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[25]  Max D. Morris,et al.  Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments , 1991 .

[26]  Jinya Su,et al.  State and parameter estimation of the AquaCrop model for winter wheat using sensitivity informed particle filter , 2021, Comput. Electron. Agric..

[27]  Patrick Willems,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis of yield output from the water productivity model , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[28]  M. Powell The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives , 2009 .

[29]  Wyn L. Price,et al.  A Controlled Random Search Procedure for Global Optimisation , 1977, Comput. J..