TY - JOUR
T1 - Simulation of soil temperature under maize
T2 - An inter-comparison among 33 maize models
AU - Kimball, Bruce A.
AU - Thorp, Kelly R.
AU - Boote, Kenneth J.
AU - Stockle, Claudio
AU - Suyker, Andrew E.
AU - Evett, Steven R.
AU - Brauer, David K.
AU - Coyle, Gwen G.
AU - Copeland, Karen S.
AU - Marek, Gary W.
AU - Colaizzi, Paul D.
AU - Acutis, Marco
AU - Archontoulis, Sotirios
AU - Babacar, Faye
AU - Barcza, Zoltán
AU - Basso, Bruno
AU - Bertuzzi, Patrick
AU - Migliorati, Massimiliano De Antoni
AU - Dumont, Benjamin
AU - Durand, Jean Louis
AU - Fodor, Nándor
AU - Gaiser, Thomas
AU - Gayler, Sebastian
AU - Grant, Robert
AU - Guan, Kaiyu
AU - Hoogenboom, Gerrit
AU - Jiang, Qianjing
AU - Kim, Soo Hyung
AU - Kisekka, Isaya
AU - Lizaso, Jon
AU - Perego, Alessia
AU - Peng, Bin
AU - Priesack, Eckart
AU - Qi, Zhiming
AU - Shelia, Vakhtang
AU - Srivastava, Amit Kumar
AU - Timlin, Dennis
AU - Webber, Heidi
AU - Weber, Tobias
AU - Williams, Karina
AU - Viswanathan, Michelle
AU - Zhou, Wang
N1 - We appreciate access to the comprehensive dataset from Mead, Nebraska, USA, which was collected by the following scientists: Shashi B. Verma, Achim Dobermann, Kenneth G. Cassman, Daniel T. Walters, Johannes M. Knops, Timothy J. Arkebauer, George G. Burba, Brigid Amos, Haishum Yang, Daniel Ginting, Kenneth G. Hubbard, Anatoly A. Gitelson, and Elizabeth A. Walter-Shea. The dataset was collected with support from the DOE-Office of Science (BER: Grant Nos. DE-FG03-00ER62996 and DE-FG02-03ER63639 ), DOE-EPSCoR (Grant No. DE-FG02-00ER45827 ), and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture (Agreement No. 2001-38700-11092 ). Funding was also provided by the National Multidisciplinary Laboratory for Climate Change , RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00014 project. Additional support was provided by grant \"Advanced research supporting the forestry and wood-processing sector\u00B4s adaptation to global change and the 4th industrial revolution\", No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803 financed by OP RDE. The Nebraska sites were also supported by a subaward as part of the AmeriFlux Management Project from the University of California-Berkeley National Lab (Prime Sponsor: Department of Energy) and the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station with funding from the Hatch Act (Accession Number 1002649 ) through the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The dataset from Bushland, Texas, USA was acquired with support from the Ogallala Aquifer Program, a consortium between USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Kansas State University, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Texas Tech University, and West Texas A&M University. KW was supported by the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme funded by BEIS.
We appreciate access to the comprehensive dataset from Mead, Nebraska, USA, which was collected by the following scientists: Shashi B. Verma, Achim Dobermann, Kenneth G. Cassman, Daniel T. Walters, Johannes M. Knops, Timothy J. Arkebauer, George G. Burba, Brigid Amos, Haishum Yang, Daniel Ginting, Kenneth G. Hubbard, Anatoly A. Gitelson, and Elizabeth A. Walter-Shea. The dataset was collected with support from the DOE-Office of Science (BER: Grant Nos. DE-FG03\u201300ER62996 and DE-FG02\u201303ER63639), DOE-EPSCoR (Grant No. DE-FG02\u201300ER45827), and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture (Agreement No. 2001\u201338700\u201311092). Funding was also provided by the National Multidisciplinary Laboratory for Climate Change, RRF-2.3.1\u201321\u20132022\u201300014 project. Additional support was provided by grant \"Advanced research supporting the forestry and wood-processing sector\u00B4s adaptation to global change and the 4th industrial revolution\", No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803 financed by OP RDE. The Nebraska sites were also supported by a subaward as part of the AmeriFlux Management Project from the University of California-Berkeley National Lab (Prime Sponsor: Department of Energy) and the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station with funding from the Hatch Act (Accession Number 1002649) through the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The dataset from Bushland, Texas, USA was acquired with support from the Ogallala Aquifer Program, a consortium between USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Kansas State University, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Texas Tech University, and West Texas A&M University. KW was supported by the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme funded by BEIS.
PY - 2024/5/15
Y1 - 2024/5/15
N2 - Accurate simulation of soil temperature can help improve the accuracy of crop growth models by improving the predictions of soil processes like seed germination, decomposition, nitrification, evaporation, and carbon sequestration. To assess how well such models can simulate soil temperature, herein we present results of an inter-comparison study of 33 maize (Zea mays L.) growth models. Among the 33 models, four of the modeling groups contributed results using differing algorithms or “flavors” to simulate evapotranspiration within the same overall model family. The study used comprehensive datasets from two sites - Mead, Nebraska, USA and Bushland, Texas, USA wherein soil temperature was measured continually at several depths. The range of simulated soil temperatures was large (about 10–15 °C) from the coolest to warmest models across whole growing seasons from bare soil to full canopy and at both shallow and deeper depths. Within model families, there were no significant differences among their simulations of soil temperature due to their differing evapotranspiration method “flavors”, so root-mean-square-errors (RMSE) were averaged within families, which reduced the number of soil temperature model families to 13. The model family RMSEs averaged over all 20 treatment-years and 2 depths ranged from about 1.5 to 5.1 °C. The six models with the lowest RMSEs were APSIM, ecosys, JULES, Expert-N, SLFT, and MaizSim. Five of these best models used a numerical iterative approach to simulate soil temperature, which entailed using an energy balance on each soil layer. whereby the change in heat storage during a time step equals the difference between the heat flow into and that out of the layer. Further improvements in the best models for simulating soil temperature might be possible with the incorporation of more recently improved routines for simulating soil thermal conductivity than the older routines now in use by the models.
AB - Accurate simulation of soil temperature can help improve the accuracy of crop growth models by improving the predictions of soil processes like seed germination, decomposition, nitrification, evaporation, and carbon sequestration. To assess how well such models can simulate soil temperature, herein we present results of an inter-comparison study of 33 maize (Zea mays L.) growth models. Among the 33 models, four of the modeling groups contributed results using differing algorithms or “flavors” to simulate evapotranspiration within the same overall model family. The study used comprehensive datasets from two sites - Mead, Nebraska, USA and Bushland, Texas, USA wherein soil temperature was measured continually at several depths. The range of simulated soil temperatures was large (about 10–15 °C) from the coolest to warmest models across whole growing seasons from bare soil to full canopy and at both shallow and deeper depths. Within model families, there were no significant differences among their simulations of soil temperature due to their differing evapotranspiration method “flavors”, so root-mean-square-errors (RMSE) were averaged within families, which reduced the number of soil temperature model families to 13. The model family RMSEs averaged over all 20 treatment-years and 2 depths ranged from about 1.5 to 5.1 °C. The six models with the lowest RMSEs were APSIM, ecosys, JULES, Expert-N, SLFT, and MaizSim. Five of these best models used a numerical iterative approach to simulate soil temperature, which entailed using an energy balance on each soil layer. whereby the change in heat storage during a time step equals the difference between the heat flow into and that out of the layer. Further improvements in the best models for simulating soil temperature might be possible with the incorporation of more recently improved routines for simulating soil thermal conductivity than the older routines now in use by the models.
KW - Crop models
KW - Maize
KW - Prediction
KW - Simulation
KW - Soil heat flux
KW - Soil temperature
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85190858798&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85190858798&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110003
DO - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110003
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85190858798
SN - 0168-1923
VL - 351
JO - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
JF - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
M1 - 110003
ER -