Calibration and Validation of the EPIC Model for Maize Production in the Eastern Cape, South Africa
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Field Experiment
2.3. Model Description
2.4. Data Sources
2.5. Model Setup
2.6. Model Calibration and Validation
2.6.1. Parameters Identification
2.6.2. Calibration Procedure
Simulation 0: Simulation with Default Parameters
Simulation 1: Parameter Adjustment
Simulation 2: PHU Adjustment
Simulation 3: HI Adjustment
Simulation 4: WA Adjustment
2.7. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Model Calibration
3.1.1. Simulation with Default Parameters
3.1.2. Parameter Adjustment
3.1.3. PHU Calibration
3.1.4. Validation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050—The 2012 Revision; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture–Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Greer, K.D.; Pittelkow, C.M. Linking Nitrogen Losses with Crop Productivity in Maize Agroecosystems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, X.; Li, C.; Zhang, M.; Wan, Y.; Xie, Z.; Chen, B.; Li, W. Biochar derived from corn straw affected availability and distribution of soil nutrients and cotton yield. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0189924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, Z.; Palmborg, C.; Ericson, L.; Dryler, K.; Lindgren, K.; Bergkvist, G.; Parsons, D. A 60-years old field experiment demonstrates the benefit of leys in the crop rotation. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2019, 69, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durr, C.; Constantin, J.; Wagner, M.H.; Navier, H.; Demilly, D.; Goertz, S.; Nesi, N. Virtual modeling based on deep phenotyping provides complementary data to field experiments to predict plant emergence in oilseed rape genotypes. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 79, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.; Hu, K.; Batchelor, W.D.; Qi, Z.; Li, B. An integrated soil-crop system model for water and nitrogen management in North China. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Santhi, C.; Srinivasan, R.; Arnold, J.G.; Williams, J.R.; Arnold, J.G. A modeling approach to evaluate the impacts of water quality management plans implemented in a watershed in Texas. Environ. Model. Softw. 2006, 21, 1141–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Sha, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wu, S.; Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Zhao, Q.; Cao, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, H.; et al. Modeling the impacts of alternative fertilization methods on nitrogen loading in rice production in Shanghai. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566–567, 1595–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.; Walker, D. Application of Crop Growth Simulation Models in Agriculture with Special Reference to Water Management Planning. Int. J. Core Eng. Manag. 2015, 2, 113–130. [Google Scholar]
- Folberth, C.; Gaiser, T.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Schulin, R.; Yang, H. Regionalization of a large-scale crop growth model for sub-Saharan Africa: Model setup, evaluation, and estimation of maize yields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 151, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, W.; Balkovič, J.; Van Der Velde, M.; Zhang, X.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Skals, R.; Lin, E.; Mueller, N.; Obersteiner, M. A calibration procedure to improve global rice yield simulations with EPIC. Ecol. Model. 2013, 273, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daggupati, P.; Pai, N.; Ale, S.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R.; Zeckoski, R.W.; Jeong, J.; Parajuli, P.B.; Saraswat, D.; Youssef, M.A. A Recommended Calibration and Validation Strategy for Hydrologic and Water Quality Models. Trans. ASABE 2015, 58, 1705–1719. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Arnold, J.G.; Moriasi, D.N.; Gassman, P.W.; Abbaspour, K.C.; White, M.J.; Srinivasan, R.; Santhi, C.; Harmel, R.D.; Van Griensven, A.; Van Liew, M.W.; et al. SWAT: Model Use, Calibration and Vaidation. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 1491–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, L.; Burges, S.J. Selection, Calibration, and Testing of Hydrologic Models. In Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds; Haan, C., Johnson, H., Brakensiek, D., Eds.; ASAE Monograph: St. Joseph, MO, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J.R.; Jones, C.A.; Dyke, P.T. A modeling approach to determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity. Trans. ASAE 1984, 27, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J.; Gerik, T.; Dagitz, S.; Magre, M.; Meinardus, A.; Steglich, E.; Taylor, R. Environmental Policy Integrated Climate Model-Users Manual Version 0810 2015; Blackland Research and Extension Center: Temple, TX, USA, 2015.
- Balkovič, J.; Van Der Velde, M.; Schmid, E.; Skalsk, R.; Obersteiner, M.; Stürmer, B.; Xiong, W. Pan-European crop modelling with EPIC: Implementation, up-scaling and regional crop yield validation. Agric. Syst. 2013, 120, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folberth, C.; Yang, H.; Gaiser, T.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Schulin, R. Modeling maize yield responses to improvement in nutrient, water and cultivar inputs in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Syst. 2013, 119, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Balkovič, J.; Azevedo, L.B.; Skalský, R.; Bouwman, A.F.; Xu, G.; Wang, J.; Xu, M.; Yu, C. Analyzing and modelling the effect of long-term fertilizer management on crop yield and soil organic carbon in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, J.; Piccinni, G.; Steglich, E. Using EPIC model to manage irrigated cotton and maize. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 96, 1323–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinaldi, M. Application of EPIC model for irrigation scheduling of sunflower in Southern Italy. Agric. Water Manag. 2001, 49, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zelm, R.; van der Velde, M.; Balkovic, J.; Čengić, M.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Koellner, T.; Núñez, M.; Obersteiner, M.; Schmid, E.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Spatially explicit life cycle impact assessment for soil erosion from global crop production. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lychuk, T.E.; Hill, R.L.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Momen, B.; Thomson, A.M. Evaluation of climate change impacts and effectiveness of adaptation options on crop yield in the Southeastern United States. Field Crops Res. 2017, 214, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, W.; Skalský, R.; Porter, C.H.; Balkovič, J.; Jones, J.W.; Yang, D. Calibration-induced uncertainty of the EPIC model to estimate climate change impact on global maize yield. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 2016, 8, 1358–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adejuwon, J.O. Assessing the Suitability of the EPIC Crop Model for Use in the Study of Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate Change in West Africa. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2005, 26, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaiser, T.; de Barros, I.; Sereke, F.; Lange, F.M. Validation and reliability of the EPIC model to simulate maize production in small-holder farming systems in tropical sub-humid West Africa and semi-arid Brazil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 135, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worou, O.N.; Gaiser, T.; Saito, K.; Goldbach, H.; Ewert, F. Simulation of soil water dynamics and rice crop growth as affected by bunding and fertilizer application in inland valley systems of West Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 162, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Velde, M.; Folberth, C.; Balkovič, J.; Ciais, P.; Fritz, S.; Janssens, I.A.; Obersteiner, M.; See, L.; Skalský, R.; Xiong, W.; et al. African crop yield reductions due to increasingly unbalanced Nitrogen and Phosphorus consumption. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 1278–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singels, A.; Annandale, J.G.; De Jager, J.M.; Schulze, R.E.; Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Durand, W.; Van Rensburg, L.D.; Van Heerden, P.S.; Crosby, C.T.; Green, G.C.; et al. Modelling crop growth and crop water relations in South Africa: Past achievements and lessons for the future. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 2010, 27, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zinyengere, N.; Crespo, O.; Hachigonta, S.; Tadross, M. Crop model usefulness in drylands of southern Africa: An application of DSSAT. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 2015, 32, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arunrat, N.; Pumijumnong, N.; Hatano, R. Predicting local-scale impact of climate change on rice yield and soil organic carbon sequestration: A case study in Roi Et Province, Northeast Thailand. Agric. Syst. 2018, 164, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Therond, O.; Hengsdijk, H.; Casellas, E.; Wallach, D.; Adam, M.; Belhouchette, H.; Oomen, R.; Russell, G.; Ewert, F.; Bergez, J.E.; et al. Using a cropping system model at regional scale: Low-data approaches for crop management information and model calibration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollongei, K.J.; Lorentz, S.A. Modelling hydrological processes, crop yields and NPS pollution in a small sub-tropical catchment in South Africa using ACRU-NPS. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2015, 60, 2003–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulze, R.; Arnold, H. Hydrological Models for Application to Small Rural Catchments in Southern Africa: Refinements and Development; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, J.; Hoogenboom, G.; Porter, C.; Boote, K.; Batchelor, W.; Hunt, L.; Wilkens, P.; Singh, U.; Gijsman, A.; Ritchie, J. The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 18, 235–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annandale, J.G.; Steyn, J.M.; Benadé, N.; Jovanovic, N.Z.; Soundy, P. Technology Transfer of the Soil Water Balance (SWB) Model as a User Friendly Irrigation Scheduling Tool; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA, NRCS, Eds.; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
- Goldblatt, A. Agriculture: Facts and Trends South Africa; World Wide Fund Nature–South Africa: South Africa, 2011; pp. 2–26. [Google Scholar]
- Clewer, A.G.; Scarisbrick, D.H. Practical Statistics and Experimental Design for Plant and Crop Science; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001; ISBN 9780471899082. [Google Scholar]
- Ruane, A.C.; Goldberg, R.; Chryssanthacopoulos, J. Climate forcing datasets for agricultural modeling: Merged products for gap-filling and historical climate series estimation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 200, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- FAO; IIASA; ISRIC; ISS-CAS; JRC. Harmonized World Soil Database; Version 1.1; FAO: Rome, Italy; IIASA: Laxenburg, Austria, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Jordaan, G.; Cradock Research Farm, Cradock, South Africa. Personal Communication, 2017.
- ARC. Maize Information Guide; Shereno Printers: Boksburg, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bondesio, S.; Kloppers, R.; Oellermann, H. Know the Maize Plant; Pannar Quality Seeds: South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Balkovič, J.; van der Velde, M.; Skalský, R.; Xiong, W.; Folberth, C.; Khabarov, N.; Smirnov, A.; Mueller, N.D.; Obersteiner, M. Global wheat production potentials and management flexibility under the representative concentration pathways. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2014, 122, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schulze, R.; Maharaj, M. A-Pan Equivalent Reference Potential Evaporation; Schulze, R.E., Ed.; School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, University of KwaZulu-Natal: Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; He, X.; Williams, J.R.; Izaurralde, R.; Atwood, J.D. Sensitivity an Uncertainity Analysis of Crop Yields and Soil Organic Carbon Simulated with EPIC. Trans. ASAE 2005, 48, 1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Causarano, H.J.; Doraiswamy, P.C.; Muratova, N.; Pachikin, K.; Mccarty, G.W.; Akhmedov, B.; Williams, J.R. Improved modeling of soil organic carbon in a semiarid region of Central East Kazakhstan using EPIC. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 31, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rinaldi, M.; Garofalo, P.; Rubino, P.; Steduto, P. Processing tomatoes under different irrigation regimes in Southern Italy: Agronomic and economic assessments in a simulation case study. Ital. J. Agrometeorol. 2011, 3, 39–56. [Google Scholar]
- Balkovic, J.; International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. Personal Communication, 2018.
- Folberth, C.; Elliott, J.; Müller, C.; Balkovic, J.; Chryssanthacopoulos, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Jones, C.D.; Khabarov, N.; Liu, W.; Reddy, A.; et al. Uncertainties in global crop model frameworks: Effects of cultivar distribution, crop management and soil handling on crop yield estimates. Biogeosci. Discuss. 2016, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J.R.; Jones, C.A.; Kiniry, J.R.; Spanel, D.A. The EPIC Crop Growth Model. Trans. ASAE 1989, 32, 497–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiniry, J.R.; Major, D.; Izaurralde, R.; Williams, J.; Gassmann, P.; Morrison, M.; Bergentine, R.; Zentner, R. EPIC model parameters for cereal, oilseed, and forage crops in the northern Great Plains region. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1995, 75, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinclair, T.; Muchow, R. Radiation Use Efficiency. Adv. Agron. 1999, 65, 215–265. [Google Scholar]
- Causarano, H.J.; Shaw, J.N.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Reeves, D.W.; Raper, R.L.; Balkcom, K.S.; Norfleet, M.L.; Izaurralde, R.C. Simulating Field-Scale Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics Using EPIC. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steglich, E.; Jeong, J.; Williams, J.; Zhang, J. Agricultural Policy/Environmental Extender Model: User’s Manual Version 1501; Blackland Research and Extension Center: Temple, TX, USA, 2016.
- Worou, O.N.; Gaiser, T.; Oikeh, S. Sensitive parameters for EPIC model evaluation and validity under soil water and nutrients limited conditions with NERICA cropping in West Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 10, 2286–2299. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Bao, Y.; Hoogenboom, G.; McClendon, R.; Vellidid, G. A comparison of the performance of the CSM-CERES-Maize and EPIC models using maize variety trial data. Agric. Syst. 2017, 150, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gupta, H.V.; Sorooshian, S.; Yapo, P.O. Status of Automatic Calibration for Hydrologic Models: Comparison with Multilevel Expert Calibration. J. Hydrol. Eng. 1999, 4, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Williams, J.R.; Gassman, P.W.; Baffaut, C.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Jeong, J.; Kiniry, J.R. EPIC and APEX: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 1447–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, X.; Easterling, W.; Hays, C.J.; Jacobs, A.; Mearns, L. Reliability and input-data induced uncertainty of the EPIC model to estimate climate change impact on sorghum yields in the U.S. Great Plains. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 129, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angulo, C.; Rötter, R.; Lock, R.; Enders, A.; Fronzek, S.; Ewert, F. Implication of crop model calibration strategies for assessing regional impacts of climate change in Europe. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2013, 170, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du Plessis, J. Maize Production; Department of Agriculture: Pretoria, South Africa, 2003.
- Kiniry, J.R.; Williams, J.R.; Vanderlip, R.L.; Atwood, J.D.; Reicosky, D.C.; Mulliken, J.; Cox, W.J.; Mascagni, H.J.; Hollinger, S.E.; Wiebold, W.J. Evaluation of Two Maize Models for Nine U.S. Locations. Agron. J. 1997, 89, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Li, J.; Naveed Tahir, M.; De Hao, M. Validation of the EPIC model using a long-term experimental data on the semi-arid Loess Plateau of China. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54, 976–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, S. An evaluation of the EPIC model for soybeans grown in Southern Piedmont soils. Trans. ASABE 1993, 36, 1327–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, G.; Stake, J.; Guillard, K. Evaluation of EPIC for a shallow New England soil: I. Maize yield and nitrogen uptake. Trans. ASABE 1997, 40, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soil Parameters | Soil Layer Number | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Bulk density (g cm−3) | 1.48 | 1.52 |
Clay (%) | 20.4 | 15.1 |
Sand (%) | 52.8 | 42.5 |
Silt (%) | 26.8 | 42.4 |
pH (water) | 6.5 | 6.5 |
Soil organic carbon (%) | 0.91 | 0.2 |
Cation exchange capacity (cmol (+) kg−1) | 14.3 | 13.4 |
Date1 | Operation | Type | Amount |
---|---|---|---|
22 October | Planting | Maize | 50,000 plants ha−1 |
22 October | Fertilizer application | Superphosphate | 476 kg ha−1 |
22 October | Fertilizer application | Ammonium sulfate | 330 kg ha−1 |
22 October | Fertilizer application | Calcium sulfate | 120 kg ha−1 |
22 October | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
15 November | Fertilizer application | Ammonium sulfate | 300 kg ha−1 |
26 November | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
10 December | Fertilizer application | Ammonium sulfate | 300 kg ha−1 |
17 December | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
28 December | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
18 January | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
8 February | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
19 February | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
11 March | Irrigation | Furrow | 75 mm |
5 June | Harvesting | Manual | 11 tonnes hectare−1 (average) |
Parameter | Symbol | Default Value | Calibrated Value | Suggested Range | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crop parameters | |||||
Potential heat units | PHU | 2340 | 2480 | 1000–2900 | [54] |
Minimum harvest index | WSFY | 0.40 | 0.01 | 0.01–0.40 | [18] |
Harvest index | HI | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.45–0.60 | [55] |
Biomass to energy ratio | WA | 40 | 40 | 30–45 | [56] |
Carbon cycle parameters | |||||
Microbial decay rate coefficient | Parm (20) | 0.1 | 1.00 | 0.5–1.5 | [49] |
Slow humus transformation rate | Parm (47) | 0.000548 | 0.00068 | 0.00041–0.00068 | [57] |
Tillage effect on Residue decay rate | Parm (52) | 5 | 6.20 | 5–15 | [58] |
Exponential coefficient in potential water use root growth distribution | Parm (54) | 5 | 2.5 | 2.5–7.5 | [18] |
Observed Mean Yield (t ha−1) | Simulated Mean Yield (t ha−1) | NSE | RMSE (t ha−1) | PBIAS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before calibration | 11.26 | 8.05 | −3.34 | 3.65 | 28.55 |
After calibration | 11.26 | 11.23 | 0.56 | 1.17 | 0.31 |
Observed Mean Yield (t ha−1) | Simulated Mean Yield (t ha−1) | NSE | RMSE (t ha−1) | PBIAS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Validation | 11.12 | 11.23 | 0.61 | 1.06 | −1.02 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Choruma, D.J.; Balkovic, J.; Odume, O.N. Calibration and Validation of the EPIC Model for Maize Production in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Agronomy 2019, 9, 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090494
Choruma DJ, Balkovic J, Odume ON. Calibration and Validation of the EPIC Model for Maize Production in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Agronomy. 2019; 9(9):494. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090494
Chicago/Turabian StyleChoruma, Dennis Junior, Juraj Balkovic, and Oghenekaro Nelson Odume. 2019. "Calibration and Validation of the EPIC Model for Maize Production in the Eastern Cape, South Africa" Agronomy 9, no. 9: 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090494