ارزیابی مدل‌های گیاهی AquaCrop و WOFOST در شبیه‌سازی عملکرد و بهره‌وری آب چغندرقند تحت دورهای مختلف آبیاری و تنش کودی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد آبیاری و زهکشی، گروه علوم و مهندسی آب، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه علوم و مهندسی آب، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران.

3 دانشیار، بخش آبیاری و فیزیک خاک، موسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی،کرج، ایران

چکیده

دور آبیاری و مقدار کود مصرفی از جمله عوامل مهمی هستند که اثر زیادی بر عملکرد چغندرقند دارند. این تحقیق به منظور ارزیابی دو مدل WOFOST و AquaCrop در شبیه­سازی عملکرد و بهره­وری آب چغندرقند در ایستگاه تحقیقاتی فیض آباد شهرستان قزوین در سه سال زراعی انجام شد. بدین منظور، مدیریت آبیاری در چهار دور (6، 9، 12 و 15 روز) و سطوح کود بُر در سه سطح (21، 30 و 39 کیلوگرم در هکتار؛ به ترتیب نشان دهنده سطوح کم، متوسط و مناسب) به کار برده شدند. نتایج آماره‌ RMSE به منظور ارزیابی نتایج عملکرد مدل گیاهی WOFOST و AquaCrop نسبت به داده‌های واقعی به ترتیب برابر با 29/0 و 07/1 تن در هکتار بود. نتایج آماره‌ی RMSE برای بهره­وری آب توسط دو مدل WOFOST و AquaCrop به ترتیب برابر با 61/0 و 14/0 کیلوگرم بر مترمکعب بود. خطای شبیه‌سازی عملکرد توسط مدل‌های WOFOST و AquaCrop برای تیمارهای آبیاری به ترتیب بین 50/3-87/2 و 26/2-91/1 تن بر هکتار و برای تیمارهای کودی به ترتیب بین 51/4-34/2 و 94/2-14/1 تن در هکتار متغیر بود. خطای این دو مدل برای شبیه‌سازی بهره­وری آب برای تیمارهای آبیاری به ترتیب بین 48/0-34/0 و 38/0-16/0 کیلوگرم بر مترمکعب و برای تیمارهای کودی بین 56/0-30/0 و 41/0-15/0 کیلوگرم بر متر مکعب به دست آمد. بنابراین در شرایط تفکیک تیمارهای آبیاری، مدل AquaCrop دقت بهتری نسبت به WOFOST داشت. در حالت کلی دقت مدل WOFOST  خوب  بود، لیکن براساس نتایج به دست آمده، با احتیاط پیشنهاد می‌شود از مدل WOFOST برای شبیه‌سازی چغندرقند در شرایط شبیه‌سازی تیمارهای آبیاری به همراه کود مصرفی استفاده شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of AquaCrop and WOFOST for Simulation of Sugar Beet Yield and Water Productivity under Different Irrigation Intervals and Fertilizer Stress

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hassan Sayyahi 1
  • Aslan Egdernezhad 2
  • Niazali Ebrahimipak 3
1 M.Sc. Student of Irrigation and drainage, Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
3 Associated professor, Department of irrigation and soil physics, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Irrigation interval and fertilizer amount have an important effect on sugar beet yield. This study was conducted to evaluate AquaCrop and WOFOST models in terms of simulation of sugar beet yield and water productivity at Qazvin agricultural research station during three years. For this purpose, two treatments were considered; irrigation water management in four levels (6, 9, 12; and 15 days) and Boron fertilizer amount in three levels (21, 30 and 39 kgha-1; as low, medium and proper amounts, respectively). RMSE values for yield simulated by WOFOST and AquaCrop models were 0.29 and 1.07 ton.ha-1, respectively. RMSE values for water productivity simulated by the proposed methods were 0.61 and 0.14 kg.m-3,, respectively. RMSE values for yield simulated by WOFOST and AquaCrop for irrigation treatments were in the range of 2.78-3.50 and 1.91-2.26 ton.ha-1, respectively, and for fertilizer treatments were in the range of 2.34-4.51 and 1.14-2.94 26 ton.ha-1, respectively. The amount of error for water productivity simulated by WOFOST and AquaCrop models for irrigation treatments were in the range of 0.34-0.48 and 0.16-0.38 kg.m-3, respectively, and for fertilizer were in the range of 0.30-0.56 and 0.15-0.41 kg.m-3, respectively. Thus, AquaCrop model had better accuracy compared to WOFOST model for separated treatments. In general, WOFOST accuracy was good. According to the results, it is recommended by caution to use WOFOST model to simulate sugar beet in the simulation of irrigation treatments with fertilizer.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Water use efficiency
  • Fertilizer Stress
  • Crop Modeling
Ahmadee M, Khashei Siuki A, Sayyari MH. (2015). Comparison of Efficiency of Different Equations to Estimate the Water Requirement in Saffron (Crocus sativus L.) (Case Study: Birjand Plain, Iran). Agroecology. 8(4): 505-520.
Alishiri R, Paknejad F, Aghayari F. (2014). Simulation of sugar beet growth under different water regimes and nitrogen levels by AquaCrop. Bioscience. 4(4): 1-9.
Blum FA. (2009). Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Research. 112: 119-123.
Boogaard HL, Van Diepen CA, Rotter RP, Cabrera JMCA, Van Laar HH. (1998). WOFOST 7.1; user's guide for the WOFOST 7.1 crop growth simulation model and WOFOST Control Center 1.5 (No. 52). SC-DLO.
Bouman BAM, Van Keulen, H, Van Laar HH, Rabbinge R. (1996). The “School of de Wit”, crop growth simulation models: pedigree and historical overview. Agric. Sys. 52: 171-198.
Ebrahimipak N, Tafteh A, (2017). Determination of yield –water use function for sugar beets in Qazvin. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2017; 33(1): 47-63.
Ebrahimipak N. A., Egdernezhad A. (2019). Assessment of AquaCrop, WOFOST and CropSyst models for Estimating Sugar Beet Yield under Water Deficit Conditions. Water and Soil Science. 23(1): 199-207. (in Farsi).
Ebrahimipak, N . A., Pazera, E., Kaveh, F., Abedi, M. J., Farshi, A. A. (2008). The effect of deficit irrigation in different growth stages on quantity and quality on yield sugar beet and water use efficiency, Pazhouhesh & Sazandegi, 78: 67-73. (in Farsi).
Ebrahimipak, N A., (2010). Determination of yield response factor (Ky) of sugar beet to deficit irrigation at different growth stages, Sugar Beet, 26(1): 67-79. (in Farsi).
Ebrahimipak, N. A., Mostashari, M. (2012). Interaction of Water Stress and Different Amounts of Zinc, Manganese, and Boron Fertilizers on Yield and Water Use of Sugar Beet, Water Research in Agriculture, 26.3(3): 251-355. (in Farsi).
Ebrahimipak, N. A., Mostashari, M. (2013). Evaluation of irrigation water management and boron fertilizer to increase water use efficiency of sugar beet, Journal of Water and Irrigation Management, 2(2): 53-67. (in Farsi).
Ebrahimipak, N., Ahmadee, M., Egdernezhad, A., Khashei Siuki, A. (2018). Evaluation of AquaCrop to simulate saffron (crocus sativus L.) yield under different water management scenarios and zeolite amount, Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation, 8(1): 117-132. (in Farsi).
Ebrahimipak, N., Egdernezhad, A., Tafteh, A., and Ahmadee, M. (2019). Evaluation of AquaCrop, WOFOST, and CropSyst to Simulate Rapeseed Yield. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 13(3-75): 715-726. (in Farsi).
Egdernezhad, A., Ebrahimipak, N., Tafteh, A., Ahmadee, M. (2019). Canola Irrigation Scheduling using AquaCrop Model in Qazvin Plain, Water Management in Agriculture, 5(2): 53-64. (in Farsi).
Eitzinger J, Trnka M, Hosch J, Zalud Z, Dubrovsk M. (2017). Comparison of CERES, WOFOST and SWAP models in simulating soil water content during growing season under different soil conditions. Ecol. Model. 171: 223-246.
Farahani HJ, Izzi G, Steduto P, Oweis TY. (2009). Parameterization and evaluation of AquaCrop for full and deficit irrigated cotton. Agronomy. 101: 469-476.
Farre F, Faci JM. (2009). Deficit irrigation in maize for reducing agricultural water use in a Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management. 96: 384-394.
Sadegh Zadeh Hemayati S, Fathollah Taleghani D, Fasahat P. (2017). Environmental Stresses in Crop Science. 10(3): 363-375.
Garcia-Vila M, Fereres E, Mateos L, Orgaz F, Steduto P, (2009). Deficit irrigation optimization of cotton with AquaCrop. Agronomy. 2009; 101: 477-487.
Geerts S, Raes D, Garcia M, Miranda R, Cusicanqui JA. (2009). Simulating yield response to water of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoaWilld.) with FAO-AquaCrop. Agronomy. 101: 499-508.
Heng L. k., Hsiao T. C., Evett S., Howell T and Steduto P. (2009). Validating the FAO AquaCrop model for Irrigated and Water Deficient field maize. Agronomy. 101(3): 488-498.
Hsiao TC, Heng LK, Steduto P, Raes D, Fereres E. (2009). AquaCrop-Model parameterization and testing for maize. Agronomy. 101: 448-459.
Kunz R, Schulze R, Mabhaudhi T, Mokonoto O. (2014). Modeling the potential impacts of climate change on yield and water use of sugarcane and sugar beet: preliminary results based on the AquaCrop model. South African SugarAssociation. 87: 285-289.
Malik A, Shakir AS, Ajmal M, Jamal Khan M, Ali Kan T. (2017). Canopy cover, biomass and root yield under different irrigation and field management practices in semi-arid regions of Pakistan. Water Resources Management. 31: 4275-4292.
Mousavi SN. (2008). Factors effective on sugar beet supply in Fars province. Journal of Sugar Beet. 24(1): 107-119.
Raes D, Steduto P, Hsiao TC, Freres E. (2012). Reference manual AquaCrop, FAO, land and water division, Rome Italy.
Sanjani S. (2012). Agroecological zoning and study of yield gap of wheat, sugar beet and corn in Khorasan province. PhD. Thesis. Ferdowsi university of Mashhad.
Shahidi, A., and Ahmadee, M. (2014). A manual for learning SWAP. Kelk Zarrin Publication. Tehran. 168 pp. http://kzp.ir. (in Farsi).
Song YI, Chen DL, Dong WJ. (2006). Influence of climate on winter wheat productivity in different climate regions of China, 1961–2000. Clim. Res. 32: 219–227.
Stricevic R, Cosic M, Djurovic N, Pejic B, Maksimovic L. (2011). Assessment of the FAO AquaCrop model in the simulation of rainfed and supplementally irrigated maize, sugar beet and sunflower. Agricultural Water Management. 98: 1615-1621.
Todorovic M, Albrizio R, Zivotic L, Abisaab M, Stwckle C. (2009). Assessment of AquaCrop, CropSyst and WOFOST models in the simulation of sunflower growth under different water regimes. Agronomy. 101: 509-521.
Van Dam JC, Huygen J, Wesseling JG, Feddes RA, Kabat P, Van Walsum PEV, Groenendijk P, Van Diepen CA. (1997). Theory of SWAP Version 2.0, Report #71. Department Water Resources. Wageningen Agricultural University. 167 pp.
Van Gaelen H, Tsegay A, Delbecque N, Shrestha N, Garcia M, Fajardo H, Miranda R, Vanuytrecht E, Abrha B, Diels J, Raes D. (2014). Asemi-quantitative approach for modelling crop response to soil fertility: evaluation of the Aqua crop procedure. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1–16.
Yang HS, Dobermann A, Lindquist JL, Wolters DT, Arkebauer TJ, Cassman, KG. (2004). Hybrid-maize—A maize simulation model that combines two crop modeling approaches. Field Crops Res. 87: 131–154.
Ziaii Gh, Babazadeh H, Abbasi F, Kaveh F. (2015). Evaluation of the AquaCrop and CERES-Maize Models in Assessment of Soil Water Balance and Maize Yield. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research. 45(4): 435-445.