Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth model and FAO-56 methods: Field and simulation studies

K. R. Thorp, D. J. Hunsaker, K. F. Bronson, Pedro Andrade Sanchez, E. M. Barnes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Crop growth simulation models can address a variety of agricultural problems, but their use to directly assist in-season irrigation management decisions is less common. Confidence in model reliability can be increased if models are shown to provide improved in-season management recommendations, which are explicitly tested in the field. The objective of this study was to compare the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model (with recently updated ET routines) to a well-tested FAO- 56 irrigation scheduling spreadsheet by (1) using both tools to schedule cotton irrigation during 2014 and 2015 in central Arizona and (2) conducting a post-hoc simulation study to further compare outputs from these tools. Two replications of each irrigation scheduling treatment and a water-stressed treatment were established on a 2.6 ha field. Irrigation schedules were developed on a weekly basis and administered via an overhead lateral-move sprinkler irrigation system. Neutron moisture meters were used weekly to estimate soil moisture status and crop water use, and destructive plant samples were routinely collected to estimate cotton leaf area index (LAI) and canopy weight. Cotton yield was estimated using two mechanical cotton pickers with differing capabilities: (1) a two-row picker that facilitated manual collection of yield samples from 32 m2 areas and (2) a four-row picker equipped with a sensor-based cotton yield monitoring system. In addition to statistical testing of field data via mixed models, the data were used for post-hoc reparameterization and fine-tuning of the irrigation scheduling tools. Post-hoc simulations were conducted to compare measured and simulated evapotranspiration, crop coefficients, root zone soil moisture depletion, cotton growth metrics, and yield for each irrigation treatment. While total seasonal irrigation amounts were similar among the two scheduling tools, the crop model recommended more water during anthesis and less during the early season, which led to higher cotton fiber yield in both seasons (p < 0.05). The tools calculated cumulative evapotranspiration similarly, with root mean squared errors (RMSEs) less than 13%; however, FAO- 56 crop coefficient (Kc) plots demonstrated subtle differences in daily evapotranspiration calculations. Root zone soil moisture depletion was better calculated by CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton, perhaps due to its more complex soil profile simulation; however, RMSEs for depletion always exceeded 20% for both tools and reached 149% for the FAO-56 spreadsheet in 2014. CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton simulated cotton LAI, canopy weight, canopy height, and yield with RMSEs less than 21%, while the FAO-56 spreadsheet had no capability for such outputs. Through field verification and thorough post-hoc data analysis, the results demonstrated that the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model with updated FAO-56 ET routines could match or exceed the accuracy and capability of an FAO-56 spreadsheet tool for cotton water use calculations and irrigation scheduling.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2023-2039
Number of pages17
JournalTransactions of the ASABE
Volume60
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

field method
crop models
Food and Agricultural Organization
irrigation scheduling
Irrigation
growth models
Cotton
Crops
cotton
Soil
Scheduling
irrigation
crop
Growth
simulation
Water
Appointments and Schedules
Spreadsheets
Cotton Fiber
spreadsheet

Keywords

  • Cottonseed
  • Crop coefficient
  • Decision support
  • Depletion
  • Evapotranspiration
  • Fiber
  • Management
  • Simulation
  • Soil moisture
  • Yield

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Forestry
  • Food Science
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Agronomy and Crop Science
  • Soil Science

Cite this

Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth model and FAO-56 methods : Field and simulation studies. / Thorp, K. R.; Hunsaker, D. J.; Bronson, K. F.; Andrade Sanchez, Pedro; Barnes, E. M.

In: Transactions of the ASABE, Vol. 60, No. 6, 01.01.2017, p. 2023-2039.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Thorp, K. R. ; Hunsaker, D. J. ; Bronson, K. F. ; Andrade Sanchez, Pedro ; Barnes, E. M. / Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth model and FAO-56 methods : Field and simulation studies. In: Transactions of the ASABE. 2017 ; Vol. 60, No. 6. pp. 2023-2039.
@article{11b604de1aed42608ac65b7508d91fc3,
title = "Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth model and FAO-56 methods: Field and simulation studies",
abstract = "Crop growth simulation models can address a variety of agricultural problems, but their use to directly assist in-season irrigation management decisions is less common. Confidence in model reliability can be increased if models are shown to provide improved in-season management recommendations, which are explicitly tested in the field. The objective of this study was to compare the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model (with recently updated ET routines) to a well-tested FAO- 56 irrigation scheduling spreadsheet by (1) using both tools to schedule cotton irrigation during 2014 and 2015 in central Arizona and (2) conducting a post-hoc simulation study to further compare outputs from these tools. Two replications of each irrigation scheduling treatment and a water-stressed treatment were established on a 2.6 ha field. Irrigation schedules were developed on a weekly basis and administered via an overhead lateral-move sprinkler irrigation system. Neutron moisture meters were used weekly to estimate soil moisture status and crop water use, and destructive plant samples were routinely collected to estimate cotton leaf area index (LAI) and canopy weight. Cotton yield was estimated using two mechanical cotton pickers with differing capabilities: (1) a two-row picker that facilitated manual collection of yield samples from 32 m2 areas and (2) a four-row picker equipped with a sensor-based cotton yield monitoring system. In addition to statistical testing of field data via mixed models, the data were used for post-hoc reparameterization and fine-tuning of the irrigation scheduling tools. Post-hoc simulations were conducted to compare measured and simulated evapotranspiration, crop coefficients, root zone soil moisture depletion, cotton growth metrics, and yield for each irrigation treatment. While total seasonal irrigation amounts were similar among the two scheduling tools, the crop model recommended more water during anthesis and less during the early season, which led to higher cotton fiber yield in both seasons (p < 0.05). The tools calculated cumulative evapotranspiration similarly, with root mean squared errors (RMSEs) less than 13{\%}; however, FAO- 56 crop coefficient (Kc) plots demonstrated subtle differences in daily evapotranspiration calculations. Root zone soil moisture depletion was better calculated by CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton, perhaps due to its more complex soil profile simulation; however, RMSEs for depletion always exceeded 20{\%} for both tools and reached 149{\%} for the FAO-56 spreadsheet in 2014. CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton simulated cotton LAI, canopy weight, canopy height, and yield with RMSEs less than 21{\%}, while the FAO-56 spreadsheet had no capability for such outputs. Through field verification and thorough post-hoc data analysis, the results demonstrated that the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model with updated FAO-56 ET routines could match or exceed the accuracy and capability of an FAO-56 spreadsheet tool for cotton water use calculations and irrigation scheduling.",
keywords = "Cottonseed, Crop coefficient, Decision support, Depletion, Evapotranspiration, Fiber, Management, Simulation, Soil moisture, Yield",
author = "Thorp, {K. R.} and Hunsaker, {D. J.} and Bronson, {K. F.} and {Andrade Sanchez}, Pedro and Barnes, {E. M.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "2023--2039",
journal = "Transactions of the ASABE",
issn = "2151-0032",
publisher = "American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth model and FAO-56 methods

T2 - Field and simulation studies

AU - Thorp, K. R.

AU - Hunsaker, D. J.

AU - Bronson, K. F.

AU - Andrade Sanchez, Pedro

AU - Barnes, E. M.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Crop growth simulation models can address a variety of agricultural problems, but their use to directly assist in-season irrigation management decisions is less common. Confidence in model reliability can be increased if models are shown to provide improved in-season management recommendations, which are explicitly tested in the field. The objective of this study was to compare the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model (with recently updated ET routines) to a well-tested FAO- 56 irrigation scheduling spreadsheet by (1) using both tools to schedule cotton irrigation during 2014 and 2015 in central Arizona and (2) conducting a post-hoc simulation study to further compare outputs from these tools. Two replications of each irrigation scheduling treatment and a water-stressed treatment were established on a 2.6 ha field. Irrigation schedules were developed on a weekly basis and administered via an overhead lateral-move sprinkler irrigation system. Neutron moisture meters were used weekly to estimate soil moisture status and crop water use, and destructive plant samples were routinely collected to estimate cotton leaf area index (LAI) and canopy weight. Cotton yield was estimated using two mechanical cotton pickers with differing capabilities: (1) a two-row picker that facilitated manual collection of yield samples from 32 m2 areas and (2) a four-row picker equipped with a sensor-based cotton yield monitoring system. In addition to statistical testing of field data via mixed models, the data were used for post-hoc reparameterization and fine-tuning of the irrigation scheduling tools. Post-hoc simulations were conducted to compare measured and simulated evapotranspiration, crop coefficients, root zone soil moisture depletion, cotton growth metrics, and yield for each irrigation treatment. While total seasonal irrigation amounts were similar among the two scheduling tools, the crop model recommended more water during anthesis and less during the early season, which led to higher cotton fiber yield in both seasons (p < 0.05). The tools calculated cumulative evapotranspiration similarly, with root mean squared errors (RMSEs) less than 13%; however, FAO- 56 crop coefficient (Kc) plots demonstrated subtle differences in daily evapotranspiration calculations. Root zone soil moisture depletion was better calculated by CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton, perhaps due to its more complex soil profile simulation; however, RMSEs for depletion always exceeded 20% for both tools and reached 149% for the FAO-56 spreadsheet in 2014. CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton simulated cotton LAI, canopy weight, canopy height, and yield with RMSEs less than 21%, while the FAO-56 spreadsheet had no capability for such outputs. Through field verification and thorough post-hoc data analysis, the results demonstrated that the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model with updated FAO-56 ET routines could match or exceed the accuracy and capability of an FAO-56 spreadsheet tool for cotton water use calculations and irrigation scheduling.

AB - Crop growth simulation models can address a variety of agricultural problems, but their use to directly assist in-season irrigation management decisions is less common. Confidence in model reliability can be increased if models are shown to provide improved in-season management recommendations, which are explicitly tested in the field. The objective of this study was to compare the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model (with recently updated ET routines) to a well-tested FAO- 56 irrigation scheduling spreadsheet by (1) using both tools to schedule cotton irrigation during 2014 and 2015 in central Arizona and (2) conducting a post-hoc simulation study to further compare outputs from these tools. Two replications of each irrigation scheduling treatment and a water-stressed treatment were established on a 2.6 ha field. Irrigation schedules were developed on a weekly basis and administered via an overhead lateral-move sprinkler irrigation system. Neutron moisture meters were used weekly to estimate soil moisture status and crop water use, and destructive plant samples were routinely collected to estimate cotton leaf area index (LAI) and canopy weight. Cotton yield was estimated using two mechanical cotton pickers with differing capabilities: (1) a two-row picker that facilitated manual collection of yield samples from 32 m2 areas and (2) a four-row picker equipped with a sensor-based cotton yield monitoring system. In addition to statistical testing of field data via mixed models, the data were used for post-hoc reparameterization and fine-tuning of the irrigation scheduling tools. Post-hoc simulations were conducted to compare measured and simulated evapotranspiration, crop coefficients, root zone soil moisture depletion, cotton growth metrics, and yield for each irrigation treatment. While total seasonal irrigation amounts were similar among the two scheduling tools, the crop model recommended more water during anthesis and less during the early season, which led to higher cotton fiber yield in both seasons (p < 0.05). The tools calculated cumulative evapotranspiration similarly, with root mean squared errors (RMSEs) less than 13%; however, FAO- 56 crop coefficient (Kc) plots demonstrated subtle differences in daily evapotranspiration calculations. Root zone soil moisture depletion was better calculated by CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton, perhaps due to its more complex soil profile simulation; however, RMSEs for depletion always exceeded 20% for both tools and reached 149% for the FAO-56 spreadsheet in 2014. CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton simulated cotton LAI, canopy weight, canopy height, and yield with RMSEs less than 21%, while the FAO-56 spreadsheet had no capability for such outputs. Through field verification and thorough post-hoc data analysis, the results demonstrated that the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model with updated FAO-56 ET routines could match or exceed the accuracy and capability of an FAO-56 spreadsheet tool for cotton water use calculations and irrigation scheduling.

KW - Cottonseed

KW - Crop coefficient

KW - Decision support

KW - Depletion

KW - Evapotranspiration

KW - Fiber

KW - Management

KW - Simulation

KW - Soil moisture

KW - Yield

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040083808&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040083808&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85040083808

VL - 60

SP - 2023

EP - 2039

JO - Transactions of the ASABE

JF - Transactions of the ASABE

SN - 2151-0032

IS - 6

ER -