Next Article in Journal
Alternative Community-Based Village Development Strategies in Indonesia: Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Cover Crops for Sustainable Cropping Systems: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Parameter Optimization and Experiment of a Seed Furrow Cleaning Device for No-Till Maize Seeding
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mechanical Chiseling and the Cover Crop Effect on the Common Bean Yield in the Brazilian Cerrado
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Better Performance of the Modified CERES-Wheat Model in Simulating Evapotranspiration and Wheat Growth under Water Stress Conditions

1
College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Xianyang 712100, China
2
Key Laboratory for Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid Area of Ministry of Education, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100086, China
4
Department of Environmental Sciences, Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat 26000, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(11), 1902; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111902
Submission received: 24 September 2022 / Revised: 2 November 2022 / Accepted: 7 November 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cover Crops - Series II)

Abstract

:
Crop models are important for understanding and regulating agroecosystems. Although the CERES-Wheat model is an important tool for winter wheat research, it has some limitations under water stress conditions. To narrow the gap, this study aimed to improve the performance of the CERES-Wheat model under water stress in arid and semi-arid regions based on the winter wheat experimental data from 2012 to 2014. The Priestley–Taylor (PT) and FAO56 Penman–Monteith (PM) equations were used to calculate the reference crop evapotranspiration and further modified the crop coefficient of the CERES wheat model to improve the simulation accuracy of crop yield and evapotranspiration under water stress conditions. The results showed that: water stress before jointing seriously affected the accuracy of the CERES-Wheat model in simulating biomass and grain yield, so it was necessary to improve the original model. In the original and improved models, the accuracy of the PM equation was lower than that of PT. In addition, the simulation accuracy of the improved model was higher than that of the original model (the average RMAE and RRMSE are less than 30%). In general, among the four scenarios, the PT equation for calculating crop reference evapotranspiration and crop coefficient had the best performance. Water stress occurred at the heading and grain filling stages, and the simulated biomass was in good agreement with the observed results, which better simulated the soil water content under water stress at the later growth stages. Therefore, the change in water stress response function had positive effects on winter wheat growth under simulated water stress conditions. This study provided a reference for applying the CERES-Wheat model in arid and semi-arid areas.

1. Introduction

The global wheat cultivation area is 214 million hectares, with a total output of 762.06 million tons, ranking second among cereal crops [1]. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the main staple crops in the arid and semi-arid regions of northwest China. However, winter wheat production is constrained by increasingly tight water supplies, which causes farmers to consider limited irrigation as an alternative to full irrigation practices. Therefore, many studies are exploring the benefits of limited or deficit irrigation on winter wheat.
Due to the time-consuming, expensive, and lack of generality for traditional field methods, crop models have become valuable tools for predicting crop growth, development, and yields based on meteorological and environmental conditions and agricultural management [2,3]. The models greatly simplify and shorten the research processes of agricultural systems and are, therefore, suitable alternatives for field experiments, saving time and economic costs. Additionally, crop models have been widely employed to optimize farming management practices and provide technical guidance for farmers and decision-makers [4,5]. In recent years, crop models have been increasingly applied for agricultural decision-making and management at local, regional, and global scales [6,7,8].
Major wheat simulation models include the CERES-Wheat in the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) crop system model [9], SWHEAT [10], SUCROS2 [11], AFRCWHEAT2 [12], STICS [13], Sirius [14], etc. DSSAT was developed by the United States Department of Agriculture for agricultural experiment analysis, yield prediction, agricultural production risk assessment, etc [3,15,16]. It has a simple interface and a wide application range. The DSSAT-CERES-Wheat model is a sub-module of the DSSAT model, which mainly simulates the growth process of winter wheat. The DSSAT-CERES-Wheat requires inputs of irrigation schemes and meteorological and soil information, which can comprehensively consider the impact of soil, weather, management, and other factors. The output data mainly include winter wheat phenology, soil moisture, leaf area index, and yield. The CERES-Wheat model has been applied widely in irrigation scheduling [17,18], fertilizer management [19,20], plant breeding [21], and influences of climate change on wheat production around the world [22,23,24]. For example, He et al. [25] applied the CERES-Wheat model to simulate spring wheat growth and development under different irrigation practices in Minqin, Gansu, China and selected an optimal irrigation schedule. Yao et al. [26] used the CERES-Wheat model to study the effects of drought change on leaf area index (LAI), biomass, and yield of wheat in arid and semi-arid northern regions, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, and northeast Plain from 1961 to 2018. The CERES-Wheat model can also efficiently simulate soil water dynamics, phenology, biomass, yield and nitrogen in Pakistan [20,27]. Wajid et al. [28] found that the simulated crop phenology, LAI, total dry matter, and yield using the CERES-Wheat model had a high degree of consistency with the measured data. Thus, the CERES-Wheat model could be used as a decision support system tool for crop improvement in a fragile environment.
Moreover, the CERES-Wheat model has been applied under sufficient water supply conditions [29,30,31] and water stress conditions [32,33]. However, it had some limitations under water stress conditions. For instance, in New Zealand, grain yield simulation accuracy was low during drought conditions in various growing stage treatments, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of over 3000 kg hm−2 [34]. An RMSE of 897 kg ha−1 has been reported when comparing the simulated grain yields with the consensus values across 141 wheat-growth sites in China [35]. Tian et al. [36] observed that the percentage error in grain yields simulated at 36 stations in China ranged between 11.6% and 33.6%, depending on the calibration methods. Yao et al. [37] also conducted field experiments on winter wheat growth under a movable rain shelter with different water stress treatments in Yangling, Shaanxi, China. They found that the CERES-Wheat model had low accuracy with discrepancies in phenology dates of winter wheat. There were relatively large simulation errors between observed and simulated yield when water stress occurred at the wintering and returning green stages. Yan et al. [32] found that the CERES-Wheat model simulated yield, maximum leaf area index, and above-ground biomass poorly under water stress conditions compared to adequate water.
The poor performance of CERES-Wheat under water stress conditions brought the necessity of modifying it to improve its performance since water stress has severe impacts on agricultural production, especially in arid and semi-arid regions of northwest China [32,33,38]. The simulation errors could result from the low accuracy of simulated potential crop evapotranspiration (E0). The CERES-wheat uses a static crop coefficient (KCS) multiplied by reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) to evaluate E0, which only works well for non-stressed water conditions. Dejonge et al. [39] found that CERES-Maize overestimated evapotranspiration (ET) under deficit irrigation. Soldevilla-Martinez et al. [40] pointed out that the DSSAT model was not accurate in simulating daily ET variations. Kheir et al. [41] found that the water use efficiency of simulation-based evapotranspiration increased with the increase of irrigation with a slight increase; under the condition of low water value is low, the simulation effect is poor. Therefore, the simulated accuracy of ET must be improved under water stress conditions, improving yields’ simulation and crop model performance.
So far, the poor accuracy of ET and yield simulation of CERES-Wheat under water stress remains unresolved. To address this, we assume that using the dynamic crop coefficient could improve the performance of the CERES-Wheat. Therefore, the objective of this work is to evaluate total soil water dynamics accuracy and winter wheat yield-related indices simulated by the non-modified and modified CERES-Wheat model using experimental data from various sites. This research would provide insights and guidance for the broader application of CERES-Wheat in arid and semi-arid areas.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

Field data of winter wheat from three experimental field sites provided by Yao et al. [37] and DSSAT v4.7 databases [42] were employed for modifying and validating the CERES-Wheat model. The sites and aims of different experiments are: (i) winter wheat experiments in the irrigation test station of Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China (34°17′ N, 108°04′ E) during 2012–2014 were used for the modifications of KCS, The wheat variety ‘XiaoYan 22′ was used, and the sowing dates were 15 October 2012 and 2013. Strip planting was adopted, and samples were taken every two weeks before the jointing stage and once a week after the jointing stage. The soil parameter data of three experimental field sites are shown in Table S1. (ii) Winter wheat experiments located in Kansas State, USA (37.18° N, 99.75° W) and Rothamsted, England (52.50° N, 0.50° W) were employed for validating the modified CERES-Wheat model. Details of the experimental designs are presented in Table 1. The ET was determined by field observations of soil water content within depths of 0–100 cm using water balance.
Daily solar radiation (SRAD, MJ m−2), maximum temperature (TMAX, °C), minimum temperature (TMIN, °C), and rainfall (RAIN, mm) are shown in Figure 1. Rainfall during the growing winter wheat season in Kansas State and Rothamsted are 600.3 mm and 558.1 mm, respectively.

2.2. General Description of the CERES-Wheat Model

The CERES-Wheat model is embedded in the CSM platform (DSSAT v4.7), is part of the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer, and is capable of simulating soil carbon and nitrogen, water balances, growth and development, and yields of wheat at a daily step [3]. It requires meteorological, soil, crop genetic coefficient, and management data. Meteorological data include daily maximum temperature, daily minimum temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. Soil data include soil type, physical soil properties of each layer, and initial physical and chemical properties of soil. Crop genetic parameters include ecotype, species type, and variety type. Field management data include crop variety, sowing time, sowing method, irrigation management, fertilization management, and harvest time. In addition, DSSAT-CERES-Wheat usually simulates canopy solar radiation uptake and photosynthesis, root nutrient uptake and activity, assimilate partitioning, water uptake and transpiration, growth and respiration, leaf area expansion, organogenesis and senescence, and field management in days [18,43,44,45,46]. It has been proven that DSSAT-CERES-Wheat can optimize irrigation regimes and increase the economy of agricultural production [3].
The basic principle for determining water stress is to compare potential transpiration (EP0) and potential root water uptake (TRWUP) [47]. Under well-watered conditions, TRWUP is higher than EP0. As soil water content decreases with root water uptake and surface evaporation, TRWUP also decreases. At a particular stage, a threshold is reached where the first water stress factor (TURFAC, Equation (1)) is activated, which mainly affects wheat expansive growth. When EP0 equals or exceeds the TRWUP, a second stress factor (SWFAC, Equation (2)) is activated [48]. SWFAC mainly affects growth and biomass-related processes.
T U R F A C = T R W U P / R W U E P 1 × E P 0
S W F A C = T R W U P / E P 0
where RWUEP1 is a species-specific parameter that is set to 1.5. The TURFAC and SWFAC values are set to 1.0 under non-water-stress conditions. EP0 is estimated as follows:
E P 0 = E 0 × 1 exp K E P × L A I
where KEP (default value of 0.685) is defined as an energy extinction coefficient of the canopy for total solar irradiance; LAI is leaf area index; E0 is potential crop evapotranspiration, which is calculated as the product of static crop coefficient and reference evapotranspiration, mm.
E 0 = K C S × E T 0
ET0 can be calculated either with the Priestley–Taylor [49] or with the FAO56 Penman–Monteith equations [50].
The Priestley–Taylor (PT) equation for computing ET0 is written as:
E T 0 = E E Q = 2.04 × 10 4 R s 1.83 × 10 4 × A L B E D O ( 0.6 T M A X + 0.4 T M I N + 29 )
where EEQ is the daily equilibrium ET, mm d−1; ALBEDO is the crop albedo; TMAX and TMIN are maximum and minimum temperatures, respectively, °C; Rs is total solar radiation, MJ m−2 d−1.
The FAO56 Penman-Monteith (PM) method was adopted to calculate daily ET0 (mm day−1), which was proposed by Allen et al. [50]:
E T 0 = 0.408 Δ R n G + γ 900 T + 273 U 2 e s e a Δ + γ 1 + 0.34 U 2
where Δ is the slope of saturated vapor pressure, KPa °C−1; T is the daily average air temperature at 2 m, T = 0.5 (Tmax + Tmin), °C; γ is psychrometric constant, KPa °C −1; Rn is net radiation, MJ m−2 day−1; G is downward ground heat flux, MJ m−2 day−1, G = 0 for daily timescale; esat and ea are saturated and actual vapor pressures, KPa.
For the PT method, the KCS value is a function of maximum temperature (TMAX).
K C S = 0.01 × E X P ( 0.18 × ( T M A X + 20 ) ) T M A X < 5 ° C 1.1 T M A X 5 , 35 ° C 0.05 × ( T M A X 35 ) + 1.1 T M A X > 35 ° C
For the PM method, the KCS value is a function of the leaf area index (LAI):
K C S = 1.0 + E O R A T I O 1.0 × L A I / 6.0
where EORATIO is defined as the maximum KCS at LAI = 6.0 [51,52]. For the wheat, the parameter is hardcoded to EORATIO = 1.0. This fixes KCS at 1.0 for the entire simulation, making it static and limiting mid-season crop coefficient options for wheat, which has recommended mid-season KC values of 1.15 and above Allen et al. [50].

2.3. Modification of KCS in CERES-Wheat

To modify the CERES-Wheat under water stress conditions, it is necessary to link the factors governing the interception of solar radiation (such as LAI) with those governing ET demands to provide a more mechanistic representation of the ET. Kang et al. [53] directly compared crop coefficient (KC) and LAI and provided a function to compute KC and LAI (Equation (9)). An exponential decay function for dynamic crop coefficient KCD is proposed by Dejonge et al. [39] to replace the original crop coefficient KCS (Equation (10)):
K C K a n g = K C min + 0.8466 L A I / 0.7887 + L A I
K C D = K C min + K C max K C min 1 exp S K C × L A I
where KCmin and KCmax are minimum and maximum crop coefficients, which are 0.4 and 1.15, respectively. SKc is a shaping parameter (=0.8).

2.4. Model Calibration and Verification

The generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) was used to estimate genetic parameter values. The GLUE output variables include the unit grain weight (HWUM, mg), above-ground biomass (CWAM, kg hm−2), grain yield (HWAM, kg hm−2), and important phenology dates (e.g., anthesis date, ADAP, and maturity date, MDAP). There are two rounds of model runs in the current DSSAT-GLUE package. The genetic coefficients related to crop phenology (ADAP and MDAP) and coefficients related to crop growth (HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM) were estimated in the first and second rounds, respectively. The 20,000 model runs were recommended in each GLUE round to ensure that the genetic coefficients were each estimated accurately and the posterior distributions were reliable He [54]. For the cultivars ‘XiaoYan 22′, the parameters G2 (41.7) and PHINT (130) were determined according to the observed values of HWUM and leaf number (nine leaves). Yan et al. [32] and Li et al. [55] validated wheat variety parameters using GLUE and indicated good performance. Other parameters were estimated using the observation data of CK treatment collected in the 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 growing seasons. Winter wheat cultivars ‘NEWTON’ and ‘MARIS FUNDIN’ are provided in the DSSAT database (Table 2).

2.5. Statistical Method

Relative mean absolute error (RMAE) and relative root mean square error (RRMSE) are used to evaluate the performance of the original and modified CERES-Wheat models by comparing the simulated and observed ADAP, MDAP, HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM. Both tools are dimensionless in comparing different output variables [56]:
R M A E = 1 n i = 1 n S i O i O i × 100 %
R R M S E = 1 n i = 1 n S i O i 2 O ¯ × 100 %
where Oi and Si are the i-th observed and simulated values, respectively; O ¯ is mean observed value, and n is the total number of values.

3. Results

3.1. Calibration and Validation of the Original CERES-Wheat Model

The simulation accuracy of grain yield (HWAM) was high, the RMAE value was 2.8%, and the RRMSE value was 3.0% (Figure 2b). In contrast, the simulated ET value was low, with RMAE and RRMSE > 20% (Figure 2c). For the validation process, RMAE and RRMSE at flowering and mature stages are less than 3.0% (Figure 2a). However, the simulated anthesis and maturity dates were the same for different treatments each year, while observed dates differed because of various water stress scenarios. The simulation accuracy of grain yield and ET was relatively poor, especially for the treatments with water stress at returning green stage heading. The HWAM was underestimated seriously, with RMAE and RRMSE values of HWAM and ET close to 20%, and even the RRMSE exceeded 30% for HWAM (Figure 2b,c). This indicated that water stress before jointing could greatly influence the model simulation performance of biomass and grain yield. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the original model.

3.2. Evaluation of Modified CERES-Wheat Model

3.2.1. Performance of the Modified Crop Coefficient in the CERES-Wheat Model

Since the equations of KCS and water stress response function have been modified, the performance of using the modified KCS is then assessed stepwise in this section.
When ET0 was calculated using the PM, the crop coefficient was a constant (1.0), while when computed using the PT, the crop coefficient changed to 1.1 with wheat growth, but in the early and late growing stages (Figure 3). However, the crop coefficient of wheat was different at different growth stages. With wheat’s growth and development, the crop coefficient increased and afterward decreased. The changes in KCD and KCKang align with the actual situation. In addition, the more severe the water stress, the more substantial the difference in crop coefficients estimated by different methods (Figure 3a,c). Before the jointing stage, there was no significant difference in crop coefficient between treatments. After jointing, the more severe the water stress, the lower the LAI of winter wheat, and the lower the leaf surface tendency to cover the ground, so the crop coefficient was smaller.
The water factor for winter wheat photosynthesis under different irrigation scenarios fluctuated with wheat growth during the 2012–2013 seasons (Figure 4). Our study showed that before model improvements, there were little differences in water factors between different treatments before jointing, which ranged from 0 to 0.48, indicating that winter wheat growth was subjected to water stress. However, the field experiment showed a minimal effect of water stress on wheat growth. Therefore, the model overestimated the impact of water stress on wheat growth. By improving the crop coefficients (KCD and KCKang), we observed that the water factors of different treatments were all 0, indicating that the early water stress had little effect on the growth of wheat, which was consistent with the results of the field experiments. However, severe water stress will limit the normal development of winter wheat and affect photosynthesis. Therefore, the water stress factor of 0 for the modified model still has some limitations, and further improvement is needed.

3.2.2. Comparisons of Summary Output Variables Using Modified CERES-Wheat Model

Table 3 and Table 4 show the performance of using the improved KCS in simulating HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM in the CERES-Wheat model. The original and modified model’s simulated anthesis and maturity dates were the same values and, therefore, not considered in the analysis. The RMAE and RRMSE of CWAM and HWAM were lower when using the PM than the PT method in the original and modified model. However, the RMAE and RRMSE of HWUM were higher when using the PM than the PT method. In addition, the simulation accuracy of the modified model was more elevated than the original model (averaged RMAE and RRMSE were less than 30% in the modified model). In general, the highest simulation accuracy among the four scenarios is the scheme of PT_KCD.

3.2.3. Comparisons of Time-Series Output Variables Using Modified CERES-Wheat Model

To adequately evaluate the modified CERES-Wheat model, we compared the simulation results of several crucial time-series output variables. The simulated dynamics of total soil water within depths 0–100 cm and winter wheat biomass varied greatly among treatments (Figure 5 and Figure 6).
For total soil water, the dynamic simulation results showed that the simulation errors would become more prominent with the increase of soil water stress in the original model. The original model underestimated soil moisture at the early stage of winter wheat growth or overestimated the level of soil water stress, which probably contributed to the significant errors in biomass simulation (Figure 5a,b,e,f). However, the simulations and observations could match well when water stress occurred at the heading and grain-filling stages (Figure 5d,h). This confirmed that the CERES-Wheat model could correctly simulate soil water content when water stress occurred at later growth stages. After improving the CERES-Wheat model, the simulation accuracy improved, especially under low irrigation levels.
For biomass in winter wheat, either under low or high irrigation, if there were continuous water stress at early vegetative stages (e.g., wintering, returning green, and jointing stages), there would be significant errors in the simulation of biomass after the jointing stage since simulations were significantly lower than observations in the original model (Figure 6a,b,e,f). It overestimated the inhibition of winter wheat growth by soil water stress at returning green stage. However, the model simulated and observed results were very close when water stress occurred at the heading and grain-filling stages (Figure 6d,h). The modified model-simulated and observed results were very close when using the dynamic crop coefficient estimator simultaneously to improve the model (Figure 6b–d,f–h). It indicated that the model had been significantly improved. Despite improving the CERES-Wheat model, there were still some simulation errors when severe water stress occurred at wintering and returning green stages.

3.3. Validation of Modified CERES-Wheat Model

The validation results for winter wheat are presented in Table 5 for the two experiments in the DSSAT v4.7 databases. The modified (WSRF1 + KCS and WSRF1 + KCD) and original RMAE results averaged across all measurements were nearly equal for the two cultivars. The RRMSE results were also roughly similar except for the output variable HWAM. The results indicated that water stress response function improved when simulating winter wheat growth under water stress conditions. However, the effect of crop coefficient improvement on the simulation results was uncertain. Most of the modified (WSRF1 + KCD) RMAE and RRMSE results for cultivar ‘NEWTON’ were greater than the original results. In general, the improvement of the water stress response function did an excellent job of simulating winter wheat growth under drought conditions.

4. Discussions

The CERES-Wheat model was able to correctly simulate the growth and yield of winter wheat under sufficient water conditions. The simulation accuracy of winter wheat yield was relatively high, which agreed with some previous studies [16,51,57]. However, the simulation accuracy of the CERES-Wheat model became low when the water deficit occurred at the early vegetative stage. It usually overestimated unit grain weight but underestimated final ET and grain yield [58]. There are different reasons for large simulation errors. Nouna et al. [59] found the model did not sufficiently simulate LAI during the whole season. Yao et al. [60] suggested permanent wilting point plays an important role in simulating winter wheat growth under water deficit conditions. These soil parameters should be measured more directly and accurately and need to be further tuned based on field observations when simulating crop growth under serious water stress conditions. Dejonge et al. [39] found the evapotranspiration was overestimated or underestimated when water stress occurred at the different growth stage. As a result, they provided a new equation that calculates a dynamic crop coefficient as a function of LAI to improve the accuracy of simulated ET [39].
In this study, the ET was estimated by PT (PM) method and the improved Kcs. The simulation accuracy of the improved model was higher than that of the original model, especially under low irrigation levels. The simulation results of HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM are significantly improved, but the simulation results of ET are not improved. The simulation errors may be first attributed to the low accuracy of water stress. Because the effect of water stress on crop growth is very complex, the current linear function can not quantify the effect of water stress on the crop growth process. Our results show that the model underestimates ET, which is consistent with the results of Kang et al. [61]. The simulation accuracy of ET is not high, which may be due to the large variation in seasonal precipitation or the dependence of the calculation of potential ET on simulated LAI [41,61]. Although the ET simulation accuracy of the improved model is not improved, HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM are significantly improved, which is the same as the results of previous studies. The increase in HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM may be attributed to the lower irrigation level, which led to the downward growth of wheat roots and the absorption of more nutrients.
In general, the CERES-Wheat model has some drawbacks in simulating winter wheat growth under complicated scenarios of soil water stress. For better applications to winter wheat management in arid and semi-arid regions, the existing CERES-Wheat model needs to be further improved. The process of crop growth is complex nonlinear; a simple linear relation to describe the water stress response function may not accurately describe the crop response process. In future studies, not only the influence of soil parameters and crop coefficients on the CERES-Wheat model but also the influence of nonlinear changes in water stress on the simulated results should be considered.

5. Conclusions

In this study, a dynamic crop coefficient was used to improve the simulation accuracy of the CERES-Wheat model under water stress. The error of the PM-based method is larger, while the accuracy of the PT-based method is higher. Among the four scenarios, PT_KCD has the better simulation accuracy, and the simulation accuracy is improved the most. Although the simulation effect of the model on ET is not much improved, the simulation accuracy of HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM is significantly improved. Therefore, the improved CERES-Wheat model can better simulate winter wheat growth in arid and semi-arid regions under water stress conditions. Under the future climate change scenario, it is very important to determine the optimal irrigation amount to achieve a high yield. To be effectively applied in winter wheat management in arid and semi-arid regions of China, we suggest that the existing CERES-Wheat model should be further verified, modified, and improved by fully considering the influence of various factors, such as the nonlinear water stress index.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture12111902/s1, Table S1: Soil parameters of the three experimental field sites.

Author Contributions

Data curation, X.L. and Z.H.; funding acquisition, T.J.; methodology, O.O.A.; project administration, N.Y.; writing—original draft, Y.W. and H.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partly supported by the Natural Science Foundations of China (U2243235, 52209070, and 52079114), the Foreign Young Talent Plan (No. QN2022172005L), the Chinese Universities Scientific Fund (2452020211), and the High-end Foreign Experts Introduction Project (No. G2022172025L).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on-demand from the first author at (weiyingnan1998@163.com).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. World Food Situation. 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/ (accessed on 11 September 2022).
  2. Hammer, G.; Cooper, M.; Tardieu, F.; Welch, S.; Walsh, B.; van Eeuwijk, F.; Chapman, S.; Podlich, D. Models for navigating biological complexity in breeding improved crop plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2006, 11, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jones, J.W.; Hoogenboom, G.; Porter, C.H.; Boote, K.J.; Batchelor, W.D.; Hunt, L.A.; Wilkens, P.W.; Singh, U.; Gijsman, A.J.; Ritchie, J.T. The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 18, 235–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lecerf, R.; Ceglar, A.; Lopez-Lozano, R.; Van Der Velde, M.; Baruth, B. Assessing the information in crop model and meteorological indicators to forecast crop yield over Europe. Agric. Syst. 2019, 168, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Teixeira, E.I.; Zhao, G.; de Ruiter, J.; Brown, H.; Ausseil, A.G.; Meenken, E.; Ewert, F. The interactions between genotype, management and environment in regional crop modelling. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 88, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.K.; Challinor, A.J. Assessing uncertainty and complexity in regional-scale crop model simulations. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 88, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Porwollik, V.; Muller, C.; Elliott, J.; Chryssanthacopoulos, J.; Iizumi, T.; Raye, D.K.; Ruane, A.C.; Arneth, A.; Balkovic, J.; Ciais, P.; et al. Spatial and temporal uncertainty of crop yield aggregations. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 88, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Seidel, S.J.; Palosuo, T.; Thorburn, P.; Wallach, D. Towards improved calibration of crop models—Where are we now and where should we go? Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 94, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ritchie, J.R.; Otter, S. Description and performance of CERES-Wheat: A user-oriented wheat yield model. US Depart. Agric. 1985, 38, 159–175. [Google Scholar]
  10. Keulen, H.V.; Seligman, N.G. Simulation of Water Use, Nitrogen Nutrition and Growth of a Spring Wheat Crop. J. Agric. Sci. 1988, 27, 317–318. [Google Scholar]
  11. Van Laar, H.H.; Goudriaan, J.; van Keulen, H. Simulation of Crop Growth for Potential and Water; Simulation Reports CABO-TT, 27; CABO-DLO; TPE-WAU: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  12. Porter, J.R.; Jamieson, P.D.; Wilson, D.R. Comparison of the wheat simulation models AFRCWHEAT2, CERES-Wheat, and SWHEAT for non-limiting conditions of crop growth. Field Crop. Res. 1993, 33, 131–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brisson, N.; Mary, B.; Ripoche, D.; Jeuffroy, M.H.; Ruget, F.; Nicoullaud, B.; Gate, P.; Devienne-Barret, F.; Antonioletti, R.; Durr, C.; et al. STICS: A generic model for the simulation of crops and their water and nitrogen balances. I. Theory and parameterization applied to wheat and corn. Agronomie 1998, 18, 311–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Jamieson, P.D.; Semenov, M.A.; Brooking, I.R.; Francis, G.S. Sirius: A mechanistic model of wheat response to environmental variation. Eur. J. Agron. 1998, 8, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Angulo, C.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Olesen, J.E.; Patil, R.H.; Ruget, F.; Rumbaur, C.; Takac, J.; et al. Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: A comparison of eight crop growth models. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 35, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Dettori, M.; Cesaraccio, C.; Motroni, A.; Spano, D.; Duce, P. Using CERES-Wheat to simulate durum wheat production and phenology in Southern Sardinia, Italy. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 120, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhou, L.L.; Liao, S.H.; Wang, Z.M.; Wang, P.; Yan, H.J.; Zhang, Y.H.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, X.; Lin, S.; Zhou, S.L. Simulation of soil water content for irrigation management based on-field and CERES-Wheat simulated data in winter wheat in the North China Plain. Irrig. Drain. 2019, 68, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dar, E.A.; Brar, A.S.; Dar, S.A.; Aljuaid, B.S.; El-Shehawi, A.M.; Rashid, R.; Shah, Z.A.; Yousuf, A.; Bhat, M.A.; Ahmed, M.; et al. Quantitative response of wheat to sowing dates and irrigation regimes using CERES-Wheat model. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 6198–6208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Si, Z.Y.; Zain, M.; Li, S.; Liu, J.M.; Liang, Y.P.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A.W. Optimizing nitrogen application for drip-irrigated winter wheat using the DSSAT-CERES-Wheat model. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 244, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khan, G.R.; Alkharabsheh, H.M.; Akmal, M.; Al-Huqail, A.A.; Ali, N.; Alhammad, B.A.; Anjum, M.M.; Goher, R.; Wahid, F.; Seleiman, M.F.; et al. Split Nitrogen Application Rates for Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Yield and Grain N Using the CSM-CERES-Wheat Model. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cui, J.T.; Ding, J.H.; Deng, S.; Shao, G.C.; Wang, W.G.; Wang, X.J.; Nebi, Y. Wheat Breeding Strategies under Climate Change based on CERES-Wheat Model. CMC Comput. Mat. Contin. 2022, 72, 6107–6118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, J.C. Risk assessment of possible impacts of climate change and irrigation on wheat yield and quality with a modified CERES-Wheat model. J. Water Clim. Change 2021, 12, 2444–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zheng, Z.; Cai, H.J.; Wang, Z.K.; Wang, X.K. Simulation of Climate Change Impacts on Phenology and Production of Winter Wheat in Northwestern China Using CERES-Wheat Model. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Long, X.X.; Ju, H.; Wang, J.D.; Gong, S.H.; Li, G.Y. Impact of climate change on wheat yield and quality in the Yellow River Basin under RCP8.5 during 2020–2050. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 2022, 13, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. He, J.Q.; Cai, H.J.; Bai, J.P. Irrigation scheduling based on CERES-Wheat model for spring wheat production in the Minqin Oasis in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 128, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yao, N.; Li, Y.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, S.; Chen, X.; Ji, Y.; Liu, F.; Pulatov, A.; Feng, P. Response of wheat and maize growth-yields to meteorological and agricultural droughts based on standardized precipitation evapotranspiration indexes and soil moisture deficit indexes. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 266, 107566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hafiza, B.S.; Ishaque, W.; Osman, R.; Aziz, M.; Ata-Ul-Karim, S.T. Simulation of wheat yield using CERES-Wheat under rainfed and supplemental irrigation conditions in a semi-arid environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 264, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wajid, A.; Hussain, K.; Ilyas, A.; Habib-ur-Rahman, M.; Shakil, Q.; Hoogenboom, G. Crop Models: Important Tools in Decision Support System to Manage Wheat Production under Vulnerable Environments. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alejo, L.A. Assessing the impacts of climate change on aerobic rice production using the DSSAT-CERES-Rice model. J. Water Clim. Change 2021, 12, 696–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pazhanivelan, S.; Geethalakshmi, V.; Tamilmounika, R.; Sudarmanian, N.S.; Kaliaperumal, R.; Ramalingam, K.; Sivamurugan, A.P.; Mrunalini, K.; Yadav, M.K.; Quicho, E.D. Spatial Rice Yield Estimation Using Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, Semi-Physical Approach and Assimilating SAR Satellite Derived Products with DSSAT Crop Simulation Model. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, X.Y.; Wang, S.F.; Sun, H.Y.; Chen, S.Y.; Shao, L.W.; Liu, X.W. Contribution of cultivar, fertilizer and weather to yield variation of winter wheat over three decades: A case study in the North China Plain. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 50, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yan, L.; Jin, J.M.; Wu, P.T. Impact of parameter uncertainty and water stress parameterization on wheat growth simulations using CERES-Wheat with GLUE. Agric. Syst. 2020, 181, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jiang, T.C.; Dou, Z.H.; Liu, J.; Gao, Y.J.; Malone, R.W.; Chen, S.; Feng, H.; Yu, Q.; Xue, G.N.; He, J.Q. Simulating the Influences of Soil Water Stress on Leaf Expansion and Senescence of Winter Wheat. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2020, 291, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jamieson, P.D.; Porter, J.R.; Goudriaan, J.; Ritchie, J.T.; van Keulen, H.; Stol, W. A comparison of the models AFRCWHEAT2, CERES-wheat, Sirius, SUCROS2 and SWHEAT with measurements from wheat grown under drought. Field Crop. Res. 1998, 55, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xiong, W.; Conway, D.; Holman, I.; Lin, E. Evaluation of CERES-Wheat simulation of Wheat Production in China. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 1720–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tian, Z.; Zhong, H.L.; Shi, R.H.; Sun, L.X.; Fischer, G.; Liang, Z.R. Estimating potential yield of wheat production in China based on cross-scale data-model fusion. Front. Earth Sci. 2012, 6, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yao, N.; Zhou, Y.; Song, L.; Liu, J.; Li, Y.; Wu, S.; Feng, H.; He, J. Parameter estimation and verification of DSSAT-CERES-Wheat model for simulation of growth and development of winter wheat under water stresses at different growth stages. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 138–150, (In Chinse with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yao, N.; Li, Y.; Li, N.; Yang, D.Q.; Ayantobo, O.O. Bias correction of precipitation data and its effects on aridity and drought assessment in China over 1961–2015. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 639, 1015–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. DeJonge, K.C.; Andales, A.A.; Ascough, J.C.I.; Hansen, N.C. Modeling of Full and Limited Irrigation Scenarios for Corn in a Semiarid Environment. Trans. ASABE 2011, 54, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Soldevilla-Martinez, M.; López-Urrea, R.; Martínez-Molina, L.; Quemada, M.; Lizaso, J.I. Improving Simulation of Soil Water Balance Using Lysimeter Observations in a Semiarid Climate. Proced. Environ. Sci. 2013, 19, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kheir, A.M.S.; Alrajhi, A.A.; Ghoneim, A.M.; Ali, E.F.; Magrashi, A.; Zoghdan, M.G.; Abdelkhalik, S.A.M.; Fahmy, A.E.; Elnashar, A. Modeling deficit irrigation-based evapotranspiration optimizes wheat yield and water productivity in arid regions. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 256, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hoogenboom, G.; Porter, C.H.; Shelia, V.; Boote, K.J.; Singh, U.; White, J.W.; Hunt, L.A.; Ogoshi, R.; Lizaso, J.I.; Koo, J.; et al. Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT); Version 4.7; DSSAT Foundation: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2017; Available online: https://DSSAT.net (accessed on 11 September 2022).
  43. Zhang, D.; Wang, H.G.; Li, D.X.; Li, H.R.; Ju, H.; Li, R.Q.; Batchelor, W.D.; Li, Y.M. DSSAT-CERES-Wheat model to optimize plant density and nitrogen best management practices. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2019, 114, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, J.C.; Feng, H.; He, J.Q.; Chen, H.X.; Ding, D.Y.; Luo, X.Q.; Dong, Q.G. Modeling wheat nutritional quality with a modified CERES-wheat model. Eur. J. Agron. 2019, 109, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ding, Z.L.; Ali, E.F.; Elmahdy, A.M.; Ragab, K.E.; Seleiman, M.F.; Kheir, A.M.S. Modeling the combined impacts of deficit irrigation, rising temperature and compost application on wheat yield and water productivity. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 244, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gunawat, A.; Sharma, D.; Sharma, A.; Dubey, S.K. Assessment of climate change impact and potential adaptation measures on wheat yield using the DSSAT model in the semi-arid environment. Nat. Hazards 2022, 111, 2077–2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Anapalli, S.S.; Ahuja, L.R.; Ma, L.; Timlin, D.J.; Stockle, C.O.; Boote, K.J.; Hoogenboom, G. Current Water Deficit Stress Simulations in Selected Agricultural System Simulation Models. In Response of Crops to Limited Water: Understanding and Modeling Water Stress Effects on Plant Growth Processes; Ahuja, L.R., Reddy, V.R., Saseendran, S.A., Yu, Q., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2008; pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ritchie, J.T.; Singh, U.; Godwin, D.C.; Bowen, W.T. Cereal growth, development and yield. In Understanding Options for Agricultural Production; Tsuji, Y.G., Hoogenboom, G., Thornton, P.K., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  49. Priestley, C.H.B.; Taylor, R.J. On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters. Mon. Weather Rev. 1972, 100, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  51. Thorp, K.R.; Hunsaker, D.J.; French, A.N.; White, J.W.; Clarke, T.R.; Pinter, P.J. Evaluation of the CSM-Cropsim-Ceres-Wheat Model as a Tool for Crop Water Management. Trans. Asabe 2010, 53, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sau, F.; Boote, K.J.; Bostick, W.M.; Jones, J.W.; Minguez, M.I. Testing and improving evapotranspiration and soil water balance of the DSSAT crop models. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1243–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kang, S.Z.; Gu, B.J.; Du, T.S.; Zhang, J.H. Crop coefficient and ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration of winter wheat and maize in a semi-humid region. Agric. Water Manag. 2003, 59, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. He, J. Best Management Practice Development with the CERES-Maize Model for Sweet Corn Production in North Florida; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, Z.H.; He, J.Q.; Xu, X.G.; Jin, X.L.; Huang, W.J.; Clark, B.; Yang, G.J.; Li, Z.H. Estimating genetic parameters of DSSAT-CERES model with the GLUE method for winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 154, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. He, J.Q.; Jones, J.W.; Graham, W.D.; Dukes, M.D. Influence of likelihood function choice for estimating crop model parameters using the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation method. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Langensiepen, M.; Hanus, H.; Schoop, P.; Grasle, W. Validating CERES-wheat under North-German environmental conditions. Agric. Syst. 2008, 97, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yao, N.; Li, Y.; Dong, Q.G.; Li, L.C.; Peng, L.L.; Feng, H. Influence of the accuracy of reference crop evapotranspiration on drought monitoring using standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index in mainland China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 266–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ben Nouna, B.; Katerji, N.; Mastrorilli, M. Using the CERES-Maize model in a semi-arid Mediterranean environment. New modelling of leaf area and water stress functions. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 19, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yao, N.; Li, Y.; Xu, F.; Liu, J.; Chen, S.; Ma, H.J.; Chau, H.W.; Liu, D.; Li, M.; Feng, H.; et al. Permanent wilting point plays an important role in simulating winter wheat growth under water deficit conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 229, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kang, S.; Payne, W.A.; Evett, S.R.; Robinson, C.A.; Stewart, B.A. Simulation of winter wheat evapotranspiration in Texas and Henan using three models of differing complexity. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 96, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Daily solar radiation, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation during winter wheat growing seasons in three experimental field sites. The SRAD, TMAX, TMIN, and RAIN represent daily solar radiation, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and rainfall, respectively.
Figure 1. Daily solar radiation, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation during winter wheat growing seasons in three experimental field sites. The SRAD, TMAX, TMIN, and RAIN represent daily solar radiation, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and rainfall, respectively.
Agriculture 12 01902 g001
Figure 2. Calibration and verification performance of the CERES-Wheat model. The superscripts ‘c’ and ‘v’ show model calibration and validation processes, respectively. The abbreviations ‘DAP’, ‘ADAP’, ‘MDAP’, ‘HWAM’, and ‘ET’ indicate the day after planting, anthesis date, maturity date, grain yields, and ET, respectively.
Figure 2. Calibration and verification performance of the CERES-Wheat model. The superscripts ‘c’ and ‘v’ show model calibration and validation processes, respectively. The abbreviations ‘DAP’, ‘ADAP’, ‘MDAP’, ‘HWAM’, and ‘ET’ indicate the day after planting, anthesis date, maturity date, grain yields, and ET, respectively.
Agriculture 12 01902 g002
Figure 3. Dynamic changes in crop coefficients for winter wheat under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Figure 3. Dynamic changes in crop coefficients for winter wheat under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Agriculture 12 01902 g003
Figure 4. Dynamic changes in water factor for winter wheat photosynthesis under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Figure 4. Dynamic changes in water factor for winter wheat photosynthesis under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Agriculture 12 01902 g004
Figure 5. Dynamic changes in total soil water within depths 0–100 cm of winter wheat under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Figure 5. Dynamic changes in total soil water within depths 0–100 cm of winter wheat under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Agriculture 12 01902 g005
Figure 6. Dynamics of winter wheat biomass under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Figure 6. Dynamics of winter wheat biomass under different irrigation scenarios during the 2012–2013 seasons.
Agriculture 12 01902 g006
Table 1. The experiment information of irrigation for the three experiments used for modifying and validating the CERES-Wheat model.
Table 1. The experiment information of irrigation for the three experiments used for modifying and validating the CERES-Wheat model.
CultivarSowing dateTreatmentIrrigation Amount (mm)Harvest DateReferenceAim
XiaoYan 22
(China)
15/October/2012
15/October/2013
Date12/153/154/155/15/152/June/2013
7/June/2014
Yao et al. [37]Modification
I1D1--404040
I1D240--4040
I1D34040--40
I1D4404040--
I2D1--808080
I2D280--8080
I2D38080--80
I2D4808080--
CK8080808080
NEWTON
(USA)
16/October/1981Date4/64/204/27 23/6/1982DSSAT databasesCalibration
T1-----
T2-----
T3-----
T4657870--
T5657870--
T6657870--
MARIS FUNDIN
(England)
6/November/1974T1–T8-----1/8/1975DSSAT databasesCalibration
Table 2. Genetic coefficients of different winter wheat cultivars in the CERES-Wheat model.
Table 2. Genetic coefficients of different winter wheat cultivars in the CERES-Wheat model.
ParameterDefinitionValue
XiaoYan 22NEWTONMARIS FUNDIN
P1VDays at the optimum vernalizing temperature required to complete vernalization (d)414530
P1DPhotoperiod response (% reduction in rate/10 h drop in pp, %)937583
P5Grain filling (excluding lag) phase duration (°C d)621500515
G1Kernel number per unit canopy weight at anthesis (# g−1)222515
G2Standard kernel size under optimum conditions (mg)41.730.044.0
G3Standard, non-stressed mature tiller wt (incl grain) (g)1.02.03.2
PHINTThe interval between successive leaf tip appearances (°C d)13095100
Table 3. Performances of static and dynamic crop coefficient in simulating HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM. The superscripts ‘PT’ and ‘PM’ indicate ET estimation methods in the CERES-Wheat model.
Table 3. Performances of static and dynamic crop coefficient in simulating HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM. The superscripts ‘PT’ and ‘PM’ indicate ET estimation methods in the CERES-Wheat model.
SchemeRMAE (%)RRMSE (%)
HWUMCWAMHWAMETHWUMCWAMHWAMET
KCDefault19.423.724.020.121.527.029.226.2
PT KCKang18.311.516.319.820.913.618.526.7
PT KCD18.110.015.120.320.812.217.427.1
PM KCKang18.58.617.521.521.29.821.030.7
PM KCD18.58.517.221.821.29.821.030.9
Table 4. Average performance of static and dynamic crop coefficients in simulated HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM.
Table 4. Average performance of static and dynamic crop coefficients in simulated HWUM, CWAM, and HWAM.
SchemeRMAE (%)RRMSE (%)
KCDefault22.627.5
PT KCKang16.519.9
PT KCD15.919.4
PM KCKang16.520.7
PM KCD16.520.7
Table 5. Validation results of the CERES-Wheat model using different databases in the DSSAT v4.7. Superscripts ‘a’ and ‘b’ represent the validation cultivars ‘NEWTON’ and ‘MARIS FUNDIN,’ respectively.
Table 5. Validation results of the CERES-Wheat model using different databases in the DSSAT v4.7. Superscripts ‘a’ and ‘b’ represent the validation cultivars ‘NEWTON’ and ‘MARIS FUNDIN,’ respectively.
ItemsRMAE (%)RRMSE (%)
HWUMCWAMHWAMAveragedHWUMCWAMHWAMAveraged
a Default21.022.419.320.924.421.621.522.5
a KCKang23.921.016.020.328.224.626.226.3
a KCD25.221.216.721.129.225.026.727.0
b Default11.316.411.112.914.018.011.214.4
b KCKang9.913.611.711.712.217.111.913.7
b KCD9.313.711.811.611.917.112.013.7
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wei, Y.; Ru, H.; Leng, X.; He, Z.; Ayantobo, O.O.; Javed, T.; Yao, N. Better Performance of the Modified CERES-Wheat Model in Simulating Evapotranspiration and Wheat Growth under Water Stress Conditions. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1902. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111902

AMA Style

Wei Y, Ru H, Leng X, He Z, Ayantobo OO, Javed T, Yao N. Better Performance of the Modified CERES-Wheat Model in Simulating Evapotranspiration and Wheat Growth under Water Stress Conditions. Agriculture. 2022; 12(11):1902. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111902

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wei, Yingnan, Han Ru, Xiaolan Leng, Zhijian He, Olusola O. Ayantobo, Tehseen Javed, and Ning Yao. 2022. "Better Performance of the Modified CERES-Wheat Model in Simulating Evapotranspiration and Wheat Growth under Water Stress Conditions" Agriculture 12, no. 11: 1902. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111902

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop