Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Productivity, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency of corn and

tomato crops simulated by AquaCrop under contrasting water stress
conditions in the Mediterranean region
Nader Katerji a , Pasquale Campi b,∗ , Marcello Mastrorilli b
a
INRA, UMR 1091 EGC, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France
b
Consiglio per la ricerca e la sperimentazione in agricoltura, Research Unit for Cropping Systems in Dry Environments, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The FAO AquaCrop model has been conceived as a tool for simulating, on a daily scale, the canopy cover
Received 30 October 2012 (CC), biomass and the actual evapotranspiration and for simulating, on a seasonal scale, the final biomass,
Accepted 2 August 2013 the harvested yield, the cumulate actual evapotranspiration, and the crop water use efficiency. This
Available online 1 September 2013
performance was analysed after a series of tests carried on 12 crop cycles, concerning corn and tomato
grown in the Mediterranean region, and having three levels of plant water stress: absence of plant water
Keywords:
stress (control), moderately stressed and severely stressed. The results highlight the effects of three
Plant water stress
factors affecting the AquaCrop performances: the species, the level of plant water stress during the crop
Irrigation
Crop model
cycle and the output variable to simulate.
Water balance The AquaCrop adequately simulates the daily canopy cover (CC) in control treatments of tomato and
corn, and in moderate stress treatment of corn. In the severe stressed treatment of corn, the simulated
values of CC were close to the measured values only from sowing to 60 days after sowing, after that the
simulated values do not fit the measurements.
The AquaCrop model adequately simulates the daily biomass accumulation under all treatments in
tomato and under non-stressed and moderate stressed treatments in corn. However, the simulated
biomass outputs were generally overestimated during the late stages of the crop cycles and, conse-
quently, the yield also exhibited a tendency to be overestimated. Nevertheless, the yield overestimation
can be retained as acceptable because the normalised differences (D) between the simulations and mea-
sured values were less than 15% on average. An exception was the tomato yield simulated in the severely
stressed treatment, for which D was greater than 30%. In contrast, in the case of the severely stressed
treatment in corn, AquaCrop did not exhibit any aptitude for simulating the biomass or the grain yield.
In fact, the model predicts the absence of any yield production, while 5 t ha−1 of grain were actually
measured in the severely stressed treatment.
The daily actual evapotranspiration simulated by AquaCrop was consistent with the observations only
in the case of the control treatments of tomato, in all the three seasons. In contrast, for the other treatments
(all treatments in corn and all stressed treatments in tomato), the quality of the evapotranspiration
simulation was poor.
In general, AquaCrop underestimated the seasonal values of evapotranspiration. The normalised dif-
ferences between the seasonal values of the observations and simulations are acceptable in the case of
the tomato evapotranspiration (D = −7%). However, in the case of corn, the differences are related to the
level of plant water stress, and they become unacceptable (D = −36%) in the severely stressed treatments.
The overestimation of the yield and the underestimation of the seasonal evapotranspiration cause the
simulations of the water use efficiency to be overestimated. In the specific case of corn, due to the unac-
ceptable performance of the model under severely stressed treatments, the linear regression between
the observations and measurements of water use efficiency is unsatisfactory.
The potential uses of the AquaCrop model as a tool for research purposes aimed to enhance the water
efficiency and as a tool for managing irrigation have been deeply discussed. The paths that should be
followed in the future to improve the model simulations have also been suggested
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 080 547 5014; fax: +39 080 547 5023.
E-mail addresses: pasquale.campi@entecra.it, pasquale.campi@gmail.com (P. Campi).

0378-3774/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.08.005
 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26
1. Introduction
The agricultural sector, particularly in the Mediterranean region,
is currently faced with the challenge of implementing new
approaches to water resource management that ensure the pro-
tection and integrity of the water resources (Katerji et al., 2008).
Increasing water use efficiency has played a leading role in the
formulation of strategies aimed to reduce the water allocated for
cultivated crops (Molden and Oweis, 2007).
Reviews dealing with the analysis of crop water use effi-
ciency (WUE), calculated by the ratio between the final harvest
yield and the seasonal values of actual evapotranspiration (Zwart
and Bastiaanssen, 2004; Deng et al., 2006; Molden and Oweis,
2007; Hsiao et al., 2007; Katerji et al., 2008) have aimed to
highlight different potential strategies for the most efficient use
of water in agriculture, particularly in those areas where the
water resources are limited. Although the WUE value is easy
to determine, it results a complex indicator because it can be
ascribed (see the review by Katerji et al., 2008) mainly to agro-
techniques (water regime, mineral supply and water quality),
plant factors (species, varieties and sensitivity of the growth stage
to the stress), and environment (climate, atmospheric pollution,
soil texture and climate change). Appropriate water manage-
ment should take into account these different factors and their
potential interactions. This objective is achievable through the cor-
rect use of crop models (Brisson et al., 1998). Nevertheless, the
choice of an operative model depends on its performance in cor-
rectly simulating, under contrasting water stress conditions, the
actual crop evapotranspiration, biomass production and the final
harvestable yield, which determines the economic value of pro-
duction.
Theoretically, many models can be generated to satisfy the
above exigencies, and these models have become available in the
scientific literature over the past thirty years. Among the models
that have been tested or adapted to the specific Mediterranean
climatic conditions, CERES (Ritchie et al., 1985; Jones and Kiniry,
1986), WOFOST (Van Diepen et al., 1989), EPIC (Jones et al., 1991),
CropSyst (Stöckle and Nelson, 2000), STICS (Brisson et al., 2003) and
CRITERIA (Marletto et al., 2005, 2007) warrant mention.
Several papers have reported the performances of these models,
supported by validation tests, along with the required modifica-
tions to improve the predictions under Mediterranean conditions
(inter alia see: Castrignanò et al., 1998; Ben Nouna et al., 2000,
2003; Mastrorilli et al., 2003; Stöckle et al., 2003; Brisson et al.,
2003; Ritchie and Basso, 2008; Todorovic et al., 2009; Katerji et al.,
2010). The recent AquaCrop model described by Steduto et al.
(2009, 2012), Raes et al. (2009) seem particularly attractive because
it avoids some of the criticisms that are pertinent to the previ-
ous models. First, the AquaCrop model is characterised by a low
requirement for inputs to predict at a daily level the biomass and
water requirement (Heng et al., 2009). In this model, the calibra-
tion procedure represents a simple prerequisite (Hsiao et al., 2009).
In addition, it is not only applicable to researchers dealing with
enhancing the water use efficiency but to many users, including
farmers, agricultural consultants and water managers (Farahani
et al., 2009). According to Garcia-Vila and Fereres (2012), AquaCrop
represents an optimum balance between accuracy, simplicity and
robustness.
Previously, several simulations of the yield response to water
under diverse water regimes have been reported in the litera-
ture in a number of crops, such as corn (Hsiao et al., 2009; Heng
et al., 2009; Stricevic et al., 2011; Garcia-Vila and Fereres, 2012),
cotton (Farahani et al., 2009; Garcia-Vila and Fereres, 2012), sun-
flower (Todorovic et al., 2009; Garcia-Vila and Fereres, 2012),
potato (Garcia-Vila and Fereres, 2012), wheat (Andarzian et al.,
2011) sugar beet (Stricevic et al., 2011) and tomato (Rinaldi et al.,
15
2011). However, the performance of the AquaCrop model under
water stress conditions in arid or semi-arid regions has not been
clearly demonstrated. Heng et al. (2009) underline, that AquaCrop
is less accurate in simulating the yield of deficit-irrigated corn,
in the Mediterranean region. Conversely, Andarzian et al. (2011)
note the ability of the AquaCrop model to simulate the yield in full
and deficit irrigated wheat in a hot and dry environment in the
south of Iran. It is important to remark that in the study by Heng
et al. (2009), the yield losses, observed in the stressed treatments,
varied between 31% and 90% with respect to the well-watered
control treatment, while in the Andarzian et al. (2011) study, the
yield was reduced by a lesser extent, ranging between 3% and
15%.
Out of the literature described above, only few studies have
simultaneously compared the seasonal values of the actual evapo-
transpiration (ET) simulated by the AquaCrop model and those
observed using an independent method, such as lysimeters (Heng
et al., 2009) or the soil water balance (Farahani et al., 2009; Palumbo
et al., 2012). Under full irrigation conditions, Heng et al. (2009), and
Palumbo et al. (2012), reported a good agreement between the sim-
ulated and measured values in corn and tomato. In Farahani et al.
(2009) study, performed during two successive years using cotton
under different water regimes, AquaCrop tended to underestimate
the ET measurements.
The precise value of the seasonal ET is a basic prerequisite for
calculating the water use efficiency. Consequently, if a model (as in
the case of the AquaCrop) is conceived to be used at the same time
for irrigation water scheduling and for testing different scenarios
of water management, it is necessary to verify, under water stress
conditions, that the daily ET is also correctly simulated by the model
during the crop cycle (Stewart et al., 1977). The studies previously
cited do not provide any information about this issue.
Finally, to validate the aptitude of AquaCrop to forecast WUE,
only a few studies are actually available. Heng et al. (2009) support
the AquaCrop aptitude to correctly simulate WUE of full-irrigated
corn, while Todorovic et al. (2009) for sunflower show a quite
mediocre prediction of WUE simulated by the model under water
stress conditions.
The results reported in literature clearly highlight that the per-
formance of AquaCrop still stands on partial analyses. In fact,
validation tests that analyse all outputs of the model (final yield,
biomass and ET during the crop cycle, WUE) are still lacking. More-
over, uncertainties arise concerning the real performance of the
model under water stress conditions.
This study, realised in the Mediterranean region, is based on
field measurements from 12 growing seasons, equally divided into
two crops (corn and tomato), growing in the spring-summer period,
under different irrigation strategies. All the faults underlined above
were omitted because an original approach was adopted which
allowing a better determination of two aspects. The first one con-
cerns the levels of plant water stress actually experienced by each
crop when submitted to different water conditions. In this study
the plant water status was surveyed during the entire growing sea-
son by a direct stress indicator. This methodology (based on the
measurement of the predawn leaf water potential) allows for mod-
ulating the ranges of plant water stress throughout the irrigation
scheduling to obtain significant yield reductions between the con-
trol and stressed treatments and within the stressed treatments.
The second original aspect is related to the analysis of AquaCrop
performances. All the outputs provided by the model for determin-
ing WUE were compared to the measured data, at daily and seasonal
scales. Measurements and simulations of the following six param-
eters were taken into account for both crops: the canopy cover, the
biomass, and the daily ET during the crop cycle, the harvested yield
(grain of corn and fruit yields of tomato), the seasonal ET, and the
WUE.
16 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26
Table 1
The main soil characteristics observed at the Rutigliano and Foggia sites.
Soil characteristics Rutigliano
Corn Tomato
Depth (m) 0.6 0.6
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (mm d−1 ) 100 100
Water content at the field saturation (vol.%) 48 48
Water content at the field capacity (vol.%) 34 33.5
Water content at the wilting point (vol.%) 16 22.5
Total available soil water (mm) 108 66
The objective is to analyse the performance of the AquaCrop
under different irrigation strategies affecting the plant water status
during the crop cycles and the final productivity.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Site and climate
Two experimental setups were utilised to validate the AquaCrop
at two sites in Southern Italy. The first site was located at Rutigliano
(lat: 40◦ 59 N, long: 17◦ 01 E, alt: 147 m a.s.l.), on an experimental
farm belonging to the Agricultural Research Council – Research Unit
for Cropping Systems in Dry Environments (CRA – SCA). The second
was located at Foggia (lat: 41◦ 25 N, long: 15◦ 31 E, alt: 55 m a.s.l.),
on a private farm. The studies were focused on:
• The corn (cv Malthus) grown at Rutigliano for two seasons, 1996
and 1997. The corn crop was grown under three irrigation strate-
gies: absence of plant water stress (control), moderately and
severely stressed.
• The tomato (cv PS 1296) grown at Rutigliano for two seasons
(2006 and 2007) and under two irrigation strategies: absence of
plant water stress (control) and moderately stressed.
• The tomato (cv PS 1296) grown at Foggia during the 2008 season
and under two irrigation strategies: absence of plant water stress
(control) and severely stressed.
Southern Italy boosts a Mediterranean climate characterised by
warm and dry summers, with a maximum air temperature ranging
from 32 ◦ C to 43 ◦ C and a minimum relative humidity ranging from
40% to 15% (Campi et al., 2009). The annual rainfall is almost the
same at both sites, 535 mm in Rutigliano and 554 mm in Foggia.
The rainfall is mainly concentrated in the autumn and late win-
ter periods and is greatly reduced or absent in the spring–summer
period. The main soil characteristics observed at the Rutigliano and
Foggia sites are reported in Table 1.
The soil at the Rutigliano site is characterised by considerable
spatial variability (De Benedetto et al., 2012). The soil texture is
mainly clayey, with a clay content ranging from 30% to 85%. How-
ever, the soil is homogeneous in the vertical profile. Therefore, due
to the site-specific soil properties, the total available soil water dif-
fered between the corn and tomato plots at the Rutigliano site. The
calcareous parent rock is located in the first horizons of the soil,
and the average depth of the soil is 0.60 m, so the crop root system
has a reduced capacity to expand beyond this layer.
The soil of Foggia has a 3 m-depth and a loam-clay texture.
Nonetheless, a 1.2 m-deep calcareous layer prevents the roots from
expanding beyond this layer.
2.2. Crop management and growth analysis
2.2.1. Corn
Corn was sown on 24th May 1996 and on 27th May 1997.
According the current agro-technique of the region, the final
density was of 5 plants m−2 . The crop was grown under a high
input of mineral fertiliser supply (120 kg P2 O5 ha−1 before sowing
Foggia and 100 kg ha−1 of N in two rates) and irrigated according to three
water treatments (see Section 2.3). The experimental design was
a randomised block replicated three times. Each plot was 9 m long
1.2
and 9.6 m wide. The dates of the main phenological stages were
100
50 observed and used to calculate the growing degree days (GDD),
39 for each phenological stages, following ‘method 2’ as described by
23 Raes et al. (2009). The values of GDD observed on control treatment
192
in 1996 are reported in Table 2.
The Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements are required for cali-
brating the canopy ground cover parameter CC (see Section 2.5.1).
The LAI was measured with an area metre (LI-3100C Area Metre, Li-
Cor, USA), and the dry matter was measured after drying (at 65 ◦ C
for 48 h in an oven) the sampled plants. At the end of the corn cycle,
all the plants were harvested from the 10 central rows of each plot,
and the yields in total biomass and in grain were determined.
2.2.2. Tomato
Tomato plants were cultivated for two seasons in Rutigliano
(transplant dates: 9th May 2006 and 14th May 2007) and for
one season in Foggia (transplant date: 13th May 2008) at a
density of 3.3 plants m−2 . The tomato crops were grown using con-
ventional agro-techniques (200 kg ha−1 K2 O with 80 kg ha−1 P2 O5
before transplanting and 200 kg ha−1 N). The experimental design
was a randomised block replicated three times. Each plot was 15 m
long and 10 m wide. The dates of the main phenological stages
used for the AquaCrop calibration to calculate growing degree days
(GDD) were collected during the 2007 crop season at the Rutigliano
site. The values of GDD observed on control treatment in 1996 are
reported in Table 2. The total biomass was determined in 2007
and 2008 at each phenological stage by harvesting plants from a
1.2 m2 sampling area of each plot. For calibrating the CC parameter
the LAI values were measured, with an area metre (LAI-2000 Plant
Canopy Analyzer, Li-Cor USA), only in the full irrigated treatment.
The yield production (in total above ground biomass and in fruits)
was obtained for all treatments and the three growing seasons by
harvesting all the plants grown in the 6 central rows for each plot.
Samples of harvested material were dried (at 65 ◦ C for 48 h in an
oven) to calculate the dry weights of the biomass and fruits. The
total biomass was not measured in the 2006 season.
2.3. Irrigation schedule and experimental design
2.3.1. Corn
The irrigation scheduling was designed to produce three differ-
ent levels of plant water status. The adopted methodology has been
described by Ben Nouna et al. (2000) and it is based on the pre-dawn
leaf water potential ( ). The irrigation water was supplied using a
low-pressure system (drip irrigation). For the irrigation schedule,
a threshold value of −0.3 MPa was adopted because if ␺ becomes
more negative than this threshold value, the corn stomata tend
to close (Katerji and Bethenod, 1997). Irrigation was scheduled
whenever ␺, measured daily, equalled −0.3 MPa (for the control
treatment), −0.6 MPa (for the moderate water stress, STRI) and
−1.2 MPa (for the severe water stress, STR2).
The values were measured on the last developed leaves before
sunrise. Five leaves per treatment were harvested, and the water
potential was measured (Scholander et al., 1965) using a pressure
chamber (Model 3000, Soil Moisture Equipment Co., USA).
2.3.2. Tomato
Two different protocols were adopted for irrigating the tomato
plots:
 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26 17

Table 2
Comparison between the default values contained in the AquaCrop files (Raes et al., 2009) for corn and tomato crops and the values calibrated at the Rutigliano site.

Parameter description Parameter value Unit

Corn Tomato

Default Calibr. Default Calibr.

Plants per hectare 75,000 50,000 33,333 33,333 n.

Maximum canopy cover (CCx) 96 90 75 80 %
◦
GDD from sowing/transplanting to emergence/recovered tr. 80 72 43 165 C
◦
GDD from sowing/transplanting to maximum rooting depth 1409 1392 891 1050 C
◦
GDD from sowing to start senescence 1400 1392 1553 1590 C
◦
GDD for sowing/transplanting to maturity 1700 1660 1993 1935 C
◦
GDD for swing/transplanting to flowering 880 840 525 705 C
◦
GDD of length of flowering stage 180 162 750 720 C
Maximum effective rooting depth, Zx 2.3 0.6 1.0 0.6 m
Minimum effective rooting depth, Zn 0.3 0.15 0.3 0.15 m
Reference Harvest Index, HI0 48 46 63 60 %
◦
Building up of HI during yield formation 750 816 1050 810 C

• At the Rutigliano site, the experimental design in 2006 and
2007 combined two irrigation schedules: the control treatment
(absence of plant stress), which restored 100% of the readily avail-
able soil water, as calculated according the FAO-56 methodology
(Allen et al., 1998); and the moderately stressed treatment (STR1),
which reduced the irrigation volume by 50% compared with the
control treatment from 50 DAT until the harvest in the 2006
season, and from 30 DAT until the harvest in 2007 season. The
irrigation water was supplied by a drip irrigation system 2 or
3 times per week, according to the evaporative demand of the
atmosphere and to the phenological stage of the tomato plants.
• At the Foggia site, the experimental design in 2008 combined
as well two irrigation schedules: the control treatment and the
severe stress (STR2) treatment, which was obtained by com-
pletely withholding the irrigation supply from 50 DAT until the
harvest. This change in the experimental protocol aimed to create
a water stress higher than that previously observed in Rutigliano.
At the tomato plant level, the water stress was monitored at
both sites in all treatments during the entire vegetative cycle, by
measuring the pre-dawn leaf water potential ( ), following the
same experimental procedure adopted for the corn.
2.4. Actual evapotranspiration measurement
Daily actual evapotranspiration (ET) was indirectly measured
(Lhomme and Katerji, 1991) using a simplified soil water balance
approach. At the Rutigliano site, runoff and capillary rise are negli-
gible because of the flat ground and the presence of a cracked rocky
layer that limits the soil depth and ascending water. At the Foggia
site, runoff can be neglected because the area is flat, while the cap-
illary rise can be assumed to be zero because of the presence of a
calcareous layer at 1.2 m-deep that prevents the roots from expand-
ing and the water stored in the deeper soil layers from moving up
to the soil surface.
The simplified equation for the soil water balance can be
expressed, at a daily scale, as:
ET = ±DW + P − Dr
The probes were linked to Tektronix equipment for the corn
experiments and to TDR100 (Campbell Scientific, Inc., Logan, UT,
USA) for the tomato experiments. The probes in turn were con-
nected to a CR1000 data logger (Campbell Scientific, Inc., Logan,
UT, USA). Calibration curves were used to calculate the volumetric
soil water content.
The drainage (Dr) was estimated as the amount of water exceed-
ing the maximum water capacity in the entire soil profile.
This approach to measure daily ET was previously validated by
Mastrorilli et al. (1998) in diverse soil water conditions by compar-
ing on a daily scale the ET from the simplified soil water balance
equation and ET measured by the Bowen ratio method (Rana and
Katerji, 1998). Differences within 10–15% were measured between
the daily ET determined by the two methods (Mastrorilli et al.,
1998).
In the tomato trials, the soil water content data measured using
the TDR technique were only available 20 days after transplanting
because agro-technique recommends ploughing the inter-rows
and shaping the soil surface after transplanting and, as a conse-
quence, the TDR probes cannot function in the disturbed soil at
this time. In this period, the cumulative evapotranspiration was
calculated according to Eq. (1). In particular, W is the difference
between the values of the soil water content measured by the gravi-
metric method at transplanting and at the first day when the TDR
data became available.
2.5. The AquaCrop model
Similar to many other crop-growth models, AquaCrop further
develops sub-model components that include: the soil, the crop,
the atmosphere, and management. The simulations are executed
with a daily time step, using either calendar days or GDD.
The crop responses to water deficits are simulated using four
modifiers that are functions of the fractional available soil water
modulated by the evaporative demand, based on the differential
sensitivity to water stress of four key plant processes: canopy
expansion, stomatal control of transpiration, canopy senescence,
and the Harvest Index (HI).
(1)

where ET, daily actual evapotranspiration (mm d−1 ); P, precipita-
tion or/and irrigation (mm d−1 ); ±W, the difference in volume of
soil water content in the whole soil profile (mm d−1 ) measured with
TDR (time domain reflectometry) probes; Dr, drainage (mm d−1 ).
The same technique for monitoring the soil water status was
used for both sites. Coaxial probes (0.3 m in length) were installed
horizontally into the soil at two layers (−15 and −45 cm from the
soil surface at Rutigliano and −20 and −60 cm at Foggia) in only
one block.
2.5.1. Model input
The application of the AquaCrop model to a given crop requires
that a series of inputs be determined. They are related to the (a)
climate, (b) crop, (c) crop management, and (d) soil properties.
(a) Climate inputs concern the daily data of air temperature, rain-
fall and reference evapotranspiration (ETo). According to the
FAO-56 methodology (Allen et al., 1998), the latter parame-
ter is calculated based on the daily measurements of global
18 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26
radiation, wind speed, air humidity and temperature. In this
study, all the climatic parameters have been collected from
standard agro-meteorological stations within the two farms
where the field experiments were carried out.
(b) The crop inputs concern two types of parameters:
• Conservative crop parameters do not change materially with
time, management practices, or geographic location. For
simulating productivity, evapotranspiration, and water use
efficiency of corn and tomato, they were assumed to be the
same as those listed in the AquaCrop files (Raes et al., 2009).
• Cultivar specific, or less conservative, parameters are affected
by the climate, field management or conditions in the soil
profile. In this simulation exercise the cultivar parameters
were calibrated to take into account the characteristics of the
retained cultivars. These characteristics were addressed as
follows:
i. Crop development expressed as growing degree days
(GDD) as reported in Table 2.
ii. The canopy ground cover (CC) is a crucial input (Steduto
et al., 2009) for AquaCrop, and for each species it is recom-
mended to verify preliminarily the validity of the values of
this parameter. In this simulation exercise CC values were
verified on the control treatments. As reported by Farahani
et al. (2009), the measured CC values can be derived using
the Ritchie model (Ritchie, 1972; Belmans et al., 1983;
Ritchie et al., 1985) from the following equation:
CC = 1 − exp(−K · LAI) (2)
where LAI was measured while K (extinction coefficient)
was assumed to be 0.60 for corn (Hsiao et al., 2009; Heng
et al., 2009) and 0.75 for tomato (Rinaldi et al., 2011).
iii. The minimum effective rooting depths (Table 2) were
measured directly at the earliest development stages by
removing the corn and the tomato plants from the soil.
Whereas the maximum effective rooting depths were
taken as equal to the depth of the soil for the crops cul-
tivated at the Rutigliano site (0.6 m) and at the Foggia site
(1.2 m).
iv. The Harvest Index (HI) values were determined
(yield/total biomass) from samples collected at the
end of the crop cycles.
The three inputs concerning the cultivar characteristics (i,
ii, and iv) were calibrated using data measured in the control
treatments, they were collected during the 1996 season for corn
and during the 2007 season for tomato.
(c) For the management inputs, the actual irrigation amount and
timing of each treatment were provided as input. The effect
of soil fertility on yield was not addressed because sufficient
amounts of mineral fertiliser were supplied to all irrigation
treatments to ensure the realisation of the full genetic potential.
(d) Soil inputs concern the parameters previously reported in
Table 1. Moreover, the soil water content at the beginning of the
crop cycle was also supplied as an input. They were measured
using the gravimetric method.
In Table 2, calibrated values of the two crops are reported, for
Rutigliano site, in comparison with the default values contained in
the AquaCrop files. Generally, minor discrepancies can be observed
between the calibrated and default values.
2.5.2. Model validation
The validation concerns crop parameters (ET, biomass, yield, and
WUE) which were not utilised in the calibration process.
To assess the quality of the model to predict the daily values
of canopy cover, biomass, and actual evapotranspiration (ET) mea-
sured during the crop seasons for each water regime treatment
of both crops, we adopted the statistical procedure proposed by
Loague and Green (1991), consisting of the best fit of the simula-
tions. This procedure is based on the Relative Root Mean Square
Error (RRMSE), calculated from the following equation:

n
(P
i=1 i
− Oi )2 100
RRMSE = · (3)
n Ō
where n is the number of observations, Pi is the value predicted
by AquaCrop, Oi is the measured value, and Ō is the mean of the
measured values.
The validation is considered to be excellent when the RRMSE is
<10%, good if the RRMSE is between 10 and 20%, acceptable if the
RRMSE is between 20 and 30%, and poor if >30% (Jamieson et al.,
1991).
To assess the quality of the model to predict the biomass at the
end of the cycle, the yield, and the seasonal evapotranspiration in
each water regime treatment of the two crops, we considered the
difference between the simulations and normalised measured val-
ues (D, in %). If the values of D did not exceed 15%, as suggested by
Brisson et al. (2002), the simulation could be retained as acceptable
because the differences fall within the error range that is generally
admitted for field crop research.
To assess the quality of the model in predicting water use effi-
ciency and its components (yield and seasonal evapotranspiration)
for each crop under all water regime treatments, the linear regres-
sions between the measured and simulated values was analysed.
3. Results
3.1. Experimental measurements of the plant water status for all
treatments of corn and tomato
Fig. 1(a) and (b) shows the temporal variation in the predawn
leaf water potential ( ) for all treatments in corn during the two
crop seasons. Differentiation between the treatments began 49 and
40 days after sowing in 1996 and 1997, respectively. In the STR1
treatments, it was possible to identify in each year three cycles of
drought when the measured  became significantly lower than
that measured in the control treatment. In the STR2 treatments,
there were only two drought cycles, but in each drought cycle the
drought intensity was higher than that measured in the STR1 treat-
ments because  reached very low levels.
During the two crop seasons, the rainfall differed in intensity
and in time distribution. The situation differed at the end of the
crop seasons, when the extended rainless period in 1997 prolonged
the water stress period in corn plants until the harvest.
The time variations in the soil water availability determined for
each treatment during 1996 and 1997 seasons are shown Fig. 1(c)
and (d). The changes in the soil water availability were synchro-
nised with those in  for all water regime treatments during both
years.
Fig. 2(a)–(c) shows the temporal variation in  for all tomato
treatments during the three seasons. Differentiation between the
STR1 and control treatments began 50 and 30 days after transplan-
ting in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Throughout the crop cycle,
the values of  were on average 0.16 MPa in 2006 and 0.11 MPa
in 2007 lower than those measured in the control treatments.
Differentiation between the high stress treatment STR2 and the
control treatments began 51 days after transplanting in 2008. The
differences between  values measured in the STR2 and con-
trol treatments increased progressively until the highest value
0.37 MPa was reached at the end of the crop cycle, which is 2.7 times
higher than the average value measured in the STR1 treatments.
 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26 19

1996 1997
a) b)
Predawn leaf water potential (MPa)
DAS DAS
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8 Control
IRR
STR1
-1
STR2
-1.2

c) d)
Soil water avaiability (mm)

250

200

150

100
Control
50 STR1
STR2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS DAS

Fig. 1. Values measured in corn during two cropping seasons (1996 and 1997) for three water treatments (control – not stressed, moderately – STR1, and severely stressed
– STR2) of: predawn leaf water potential (a and b); soil water availability (c and d). In c and in d, the values of the wilting point (- - - - - -) and of the field capacity () are also
shown. DAS is the acronym of ‘Days After Sowing’.

2006 2007 2008

a) b) c)
Predawn leaf water potential (MPa)

DAT DAT DAT

15 35 55 75 95 115 15 35 55 75 95 115 15 35 55 75 95 115

-0.1

-0.3

-0.5
Control
IRR
Control
IRR
-0.7 Control
IRR
STR2
STR1 STR1
-0.9

d) e) f)
Soil water avaiability (mm)

250 250 600

200 200 500

mm
mm

150 150 400 Control

IRR
Control Control
IRR STR2
100 100 300
STR1 STR1
50 50 200
15 35 55 75 95 115 15 35 55 75 95 115 15 35 55 75 95 115
DAT DAT DAT

Fig. 2. Values measured in tomato during three cropping seasons (2006, 2007 and 2008) for three water treatments (control, STR1 and STR2) of: predawn leaf water potential
(a–c); soil water availability (d–f). In panel d, in e, and in f, the values of the wilting point (- - - - - -) and of the field capacity () are also shown. DAT is the acronym of ‘Days
After Transplanting’. The definition of the three treatments (control, STRI and STR2) is provided in the caption to Fig. 1.
20 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26

a) Corn - 1996 Table 3

100 Control-sim Relative root mean square error (RRMSE in %) determined on corn and tomato crops
1996 STR1-sim grown under three water treatments (control, STR1 and STR2) for daily simulated
STR2-sim values by AquaCrop model of: canopy cover (CC), crop evapotranspiration (ET) and
80 Control-meas biomass. The definition of the three treatments (control, STRI and STR2) is provided
STR1-meas in the caption to Fig. 1.
Canopy cover (%)

STR2-meas
60 Season Treatment CC ET Biomass

Corn
40 1996 4 37 20
Control
1997 7 41 32
1996 29 50 14
20 STR1
1997 15 42 18
1996 96 70 65
STR2
0 1997 81 68 55
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Tomato
DAS
2006 23
b) Corn – 1997 2007 11 29 19
Control
100 Control-sim
2008 29 14
STR1-sim
2006 STR1 38
STR2-sim
Control-meas 2007 STR1 41 24
80
STR1-meas 2008 STR2 44 25
Canopy cover (%)

STR2-meas
60

40 measurements because the model predicts the complete absence

of the canopy cover (i.e. LAI, according to Eq. (2)) after that date. The
20 rehydration of the crop, as shown in Fig. 1, after an irrigation supply
(68 DAS), affects CC values, only in the case of the treatments STR1.
In the control treatments, significant differences between the
0
measured and simulated biomass values (Fig. 4(a) and (b)), became
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS apparent from 60 (in 1997) and 80 (in 1996) DAS. These differences
c) Tomato – 2007 exhibit a clear trend. The AquaCrop simulation overestimates the
100 biomass during the second half of the corn crop cycle.
Differences between the measured and simulated ET values in
80 the control treatments (Fig. 5(a) and (b)) began at 40 DAS; however
Canopy cover (%)

60
40
Control-sim
Control-meas
20
0 In the moderately stressed treatments STR1 (Fig. 4(c) and (d)),
0 20 40 60 80 100
DAT
Fig. 3. Canopy cover measured (meas) and simulated (sim) for three water treat-
ments (control, STR1 and STR2) during two cropping seasons of corn (1996 and 1997,
a and b) and during one cropping season of tomato for the control treatment (2007,
c). DAS and DAT are the acronyms of ‘Days After Sowing’ and ‘Days After Transplan-
ting’. The definition of the three treatments (control, STRI and STR2) is provided in
the caption to Fig. 1.
In addition, during the tomato crop cycle, the changes in soil
water availability (Fig. 2(d)–(f)) were noticeably synchronised to
 for all water treatments during both years.
3.2. Simulations and measurements of CC, biomass, and ET
during the crop cycles
3.2.1. The case of corn grown under contrasting watering
conditions
AquaCrop was able to simulate accurately the canopy cover (CC)
development in the control treatments (Fig. 3(a) and (b); Table 3).
In the moderately stressed treatments STR1, simulation could be
retained to a certain extent acceptable, since the model systemati-
cally underestimates the maximal CC values. In STR2, the simulated
and measured values of CC were close only from sowing to 60 DAS
(days after sowing), after that the simulated values do not fit the
clear trends were lacking. It was only possible to determine that the
days when the simulated ET was underestimated alternated with
days when the daily ET was overestimated.
The AquaCrop aptitude to forecast the biomass in control treat-
ments is good overall, with an exception for the corn grown in 1997.
However, the aptitude to predict the daily ET in these treatments
is poor (Table 3).
120
the measured and simulated biomass values were very similar,
mainly during the entire season in 1996. During the successive
cropping season, significant differences became apparent between
the measured and simulated biomass values. The trend and the time
when these differences appeared were similar to those measured
previously in the control treatments.
In STR1 (Fig. 5(c) and (d)), AquaCrop underestimated the daily
values of ET during the drought cycles (for example, see the ET
values simulated and measured between 50 and 60 DAS in 1996
and 1997 and between 100 and 120 DAS in 1997). Furthermore,
this means that AquaCrop overestimated the drought effect on the
daily ET. In addition, the model underestimates the maximal values
of the daily ET measured soon after the irrigation supplies.
The AquaCrop aptitude (Table 3) for predicting the biomass in
STR1 was more effective than in the case of the control treatments.
However, the model exhibited a poor aptitude to predict the daily
ET (Table 3) under the same conditions.
In the severely stressed treatments STR2, the model correctly
simulated the biomass only for the first 50 DAS (Fig. 4(e) and
(f)). After the first drought cycle, AquaCrop predicted that the
biomass would not exhibit further growth, consistently with the
simulations predicting the absence of CC (Fig. 3(a) and (b)). As a
consequence, the differences between the measured and simulated
values increased until reaching the maximal value at the end of the
crop cycle.
 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26 21

1996 1997
a) b)
25
Control Control
20

15

t ha-1
10 measured
simulated
5

c) d)
25
STR1 STR1
20

15
t ha-1
Biomass

10

0
e) f)
25
STR2 STR2
20

15
ha-1

10
t

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DAS DAS

Fig. 4. Biomass measured and simulated by AquaCrop model during two corn cropping seasons (1996 and 1997) for three water treatments: control (a and b), STR1(c and
d) and STR2 (e and f). DAS is the acronym of ‘Days After Sowing’. The definition of the three treatments (control, STRI and STR2) is provided in the caption to Fig. 1.

The simulation of the daily ET in the STR2 treatments (Fig. 5(e)
and (f)) confirms and amplifies the observations previously
reported about the STR1 treatments (underestimation of the min-
imal and maximal values of daily ET). The model shows a poor
aptitude (Table 3) to predict the biomass and ET on a daily scale
in the STR2 conditions.
3.2.2. The case of tomato growing under contrasting watering
conditions
In the control treatments, the simulated CC (Fig. 3(c)) and
biomass (Fig. 6(a) and (b)) values followed the same trend
previously measured in the control treatments of corn. The dif-
ferences between the simulation and measurements of daily ET
(Fig. 7(a)–(c)) were generally less, particularly in 2006 season, than
those previously described for the control treatments of corn.
As for the three control treatments, the model exhibited a good
aptitude (Table 3) to predict CC (in 2007 season) and biomass (2007
and 2008 seasons). The daily ET simulations were also acceptable
(Table 3).
AquaCrop overestimated the tomato biomass in the stressed
treatments (Fig. 6(c) and (d)), mainly after 40 DAT and 60 DAT for
STR2 and STR1, respectively. In addition, differences between mea-
sured and simulated values were noticeably more pronounced than
those measured in the irrigated treatments of the same crop. This
observation can also be extended to the daily ET values because
the deviations between the simulated and measurements became
higher under water stress conditions (Fig. 7(d)–(f)). AquaCrop apti-
tude to predict the biomass under water stress conditions was
satisfactory. Moreover, the model aptitude to predict the daily ET
became poor (Table 3) in all water stress treatments.
3.2.3. Simulations and measurements under well watered
treatments: final biomass, yield, seasonal ET and WUE
In terms of grain yield and seasonal ET, the measured corn values
of STR1 decreased on average 22% and 14% with respect to the con-
trol treatments (Table 4). These reductions were more pronounced
(on average 43% and 30%, respectively for yield and ET) in the STR2
treatments.
In STR1, the yield in fruits and the seasonal ET of tomato
decreased by an average of 37% and 24% with respect to the control
treatments. These reductions were noticeably more pronounced in
STR2 (69% for yield and 40% for ET). In both species, the yield was
reduced more than the seasonal ET.
The differences (D) in the final biomass (15–20%) and yield (13%)
measured in the control treatments of corn between the observa-
tion and simulation during both cropping seasons indicate that the
model overestimates these two parameters. However, the simu-
lated values are acceptable, particularly for the yield. Less difference
was observed in the STR1 conditions, ±10% and ±4% for biomass
and yield, respectively. In contrast, in the case of the STR2 treat-
ments, AquaCrop did not exhibit any aptitude to predict production
as the biomass or especially as grain. In the case of corn biomass, the
22 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26

1996 1997
a) b)
10 simulated
Control observedd
measure Control
8

mm
4

0
c) d)
10
Daily Actual Evapotranspiration

STR1 STR1
8

6
mm

4
1

0
e) f)
10
STR2 STR2
8

6
mm

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DAS DAS

Fig. 5. Actual daily evapotranspiration measured and simulated by AquaCrop model during two cropping seasons of corn (1996 and 1997) for three treatments: control (a
and b), STR1(c and d) and STR2 (e and f). DAS is the acronym of ‘Days After Sowing’. The definition of the three treatments (control, STRI and STR2) is provided in the caption
to Fig. 1.

Table 4
Seasonal evapotranspiration (ET), final biomass and yield measured (meas) and simulated (sim) by AquaCrop model for corn and tomato crops grown under three water
treatments: control, STR1 and STR2. The normalised differences (D in %) between simulated and measured values are also reported. The definition of the three treatments
(control, STRI, STR2) is provided in the caption to Fig. 1.

Crops Years Treatment ET (mm) Biomass (t ha−1 ) Yield (t ha−1 )

Meas Sim D (%) Meas Sim D (%) Meas Sim D (%)

Control 509 483 −5.1 19.9 23.0 15.3 9.2 10.4 13.3
1996 STR1 425 367 −13.6 16.1 14.5 −10.2 6.8 6.5 −4.3
STR2 372 267 −28.2 13.1 5.4 −59.2 5.0 0.0 –
Corn
Control 498 465 −6.6 18.7 22.3 19.5 8.7 9.8 13.0
1997 STR1 442 382 −13.6 15.7 17.3 10.5 7.2 7.5 4.2
STR2 338 214 −36.7 11.6 5.3 −54.3 5.2 0.0 –

Control 498 464 −6.8 – 12.0 6.3 7.1 12.7

2006
STR1 400 376 −6.0 – 8.5 4.2 4.9 16.7
Control 485 474 −2.2 9.9 11.4 15.2 5.9 6.7 13.6
Tomato 2007
STR1 345 337 −2.3 5.9 7.0 18.6 3.5 3.9 11.1
Control 486 487 0.2 10.9 11.4 4.2 6.4 6.7 4.7
2008
STR2 290 287 −1.0 4.8 5.2 8.3 2.0 2.6 30.0
 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26 23

2007 2008
a) b)
12
Control Control
10
8 measured

t ha-1
6 simulated

4
2
biomass

0
c) d)
12
STR1 STR2
10
8
ha-1

6
t

4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAT DAT

Fig. 6. Biomass measured and simulated by AquaCrop model during two cropping seasons of tomato (2007 and 2008) for three water treatments: control (a and b), STR1(c)
and STR2(d). DAT is the acronym of ‘Days After Transplanting’. The definition of the three treatments (control, STRI and STR2) is provided in the caption to Fig. 1.

difference between the simulated and measured values was above In general, the simulated values in tomato exhibited the same
54–59%. Moreover, the model predicted the absence of any yield behaviour previously described for corn, consisting in the overes-
production in the STR2 treatments, while approximately 5 t ha−1 timation of final biomass and fruit, and in the underestimation
of grain were actually measured. of the seasonal ET (Table 4). However, the differences in the
The differences in the seasonal ET between the simulation and biomass and seasonal ET observed in all treatments are consid-
measurements observed in all of the corn treatments highlight that ered acceptable (if D < 15%). In the specific case of the fruit yield,
AquaCrop systematically underestimates the seasonal ET. In addi- the differences are acceptable only on the control and STR1 treat-
tion, the D values increased as a function of the level of plant water ments. However, this difference doubles (D = 30%) in the STR2
stress. These differences, however, can be considered unacceptable treatment. The yield simulated in this treatment condition is unac-
(D > 15%) in the STR2 treatments. ceptable.

2006 2007 2008

a) b) c)
10 simulated
Control measured Control Control
8

6
mm

4
Daily Actual Evapotranspiration

0
d) e) f)
10
STR1 STR1 STR2
8

6
mm

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAT DAT DAT

Fig. 7. Actual daily evapotranspiration measured and simulated by AquaCrop model during three cropping seasons of tomato (2006, 2007 and 2008)) for three treatments:
control (a–c), STR1 (d and e) and STR2 (f). DAS is the acronym of ‘Days After Sowing’. The definition of the three treatments (control, STRI and STR2) is provided in the caption
to Fig. 1.
24 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26

a) 600 4. Discussion

Tomato The analysis reported in the previous sections indicates that the
Corn performance of the AquaCrop depends on three factors: the species
Seasonal ETsimulated (mm)

500 (corn or tomato), the water stress level experienced by the plants
during the crop cycle (control, moderately, or severely stressed),
and the output variable (CC, biomass, ET, yield, or WUE).
TOMATO: The validation tests on the control treatments of tomato crop
400 y = 0.95x + 9.5 underline the model aptitude to simulate CC, biomass, ET and yield.
R² = 0.98 This observation is consistent with previous results obtained by
Rinaldi et al. (2011) and Palumbo et al. (2012) on the same species.
CORN: The validation test under water stress conditions reported here
300 y = 1.57x - 313 can be considered as original results, because at the moment they
R² = 0.99 cannot be compared to other observations taken from the litera-
ture. However, these results should be confirmed by further studies
carried out under water stress conditions which consider specific
200
observations on the canopy cover. After that an exhaustive analysis
200 300 400 500 600
can be drawn on the aptitude of AquaCrop to simulate tomato crop
Seasonal ET measured (mm)
productivity and water requirement under soil water stress condi-
b) 12 tion. Nevertheless, the results here obtained in corn and in tomato
Corn
crops under severe water stress (STR2), are coherent and allow con-
Tomato
cluding that AquaCrop showed a poor aptitude in simulating the
Yield simulated (t ha-1)

9 final yield and daily actual ET.

TOMATO: The validation test, performed on corn crop, by Stricevic et al.
y = 1.01x + 0.54 (2011) in Serbia is based on observations from two water regimes
6 R² = 0.99 (rainfed and supplemental irrigation) repeated over six crop sea-
sons. In the rainfed treatments, the grain yield was reduced by 15%
CORN:
on average with respect to the yield measured in the treatments
y = 2.60x - 12.5
3 R² = 0.95 that were watered with supplemental irrigation. In the study by
Garcia-Vila and Fereres (2012), the validation test on corn crop
was based on four observations carried out in Spain using dif-
ferent water treatments. The grain yield measured in these four
0
treatments varied between 12.6 and 16.8 t ha−1 . The range of yield
0 3 6 9 12
Yield measured (t ha-1) reduction in the two papers cited above was close to that mea-
c) sured in the STR1 treatments (Table 4). Stricevic et al. (2011) and
3 Garcia-Vila and Fereres (2012) could conclude that AquaCrop does
Corn adequately predict the yields in corn under irrigated and stressed
Tomato conditions. Our study does not disagree with their conclusions
WUE simulated (kg m-3)

because our results under control and moderately stressed treat-

2 ments (STR1) are consistent with those reported previously.
In the Heng et al. (2009) study on corn, which was also con-
TOMATO: ducted in Spain during the 1995 season, AquaCrop was tested
y = 0.90x + 0.29
CORN: under three situations: full irrigation (control, FI), and two partial
R² = 0.89
y = 5.45x - 7.4 irrigation treatments receiving 50% and 33% of FI. In both stressed
1 R² = 0.75 treatments, the grain yield was reduced by 31% and 91% with
respect to the control. In our study, the reduction in yield measured
in the STR2 condition ranked between the two values reported
in the Spanish experiment. Heng et al. (2009) concluded that the
0 model showed a good performance in predicting the yield under
0 1 2 3 the fully irrigated conditions. In contrast, AquaCrop failed in simu-
WUE measured (kg m-3) lating the yield in both stressed treatments. In particular, the yield
simulated by the model was equal to that of the control treatment
Fig. 8. Comparison between measured and simulated values from all water treat-
ments of corn and of tomato for: (a) seasonal evapotranspiration, (b) yield, and (c)
in the case of the 50% FI treatment, and the simulated yield was
water use efficiency (WUE). reduced only by 16%, with respect to the control yield, in the case
of the treatment with 33% FI.
After 2 years of observations, the conclusions drown from this
study are also consistent with those of Heng et al. (2009), in that
Fig. 8 presents, for all treatments of corn and tomato crops, a AquaCrop was considered unable to predict the yield of corn under
comparison between the simulated and measured values of sea- severe stress conditions. However, the origin of this lack of fitness
sonal ET (Fig. 8(a)), yield (Fig. 8(b)), and WUE (Fig. 8(c)). For all differed in the two studies. In the study by Heng et al. (2009), it
treatments in tomato, and for two of the treatments in corn (control, is attributed to a less adequate simulation of severe water stress
and STR1), AquaCrop underestimated the seasonal ET, but over- treatments, especially if stress occurs during the senescence stage.
estimated the yield and WUE. In the particular case of STR2 in In our study, the lack of fitness of the model in simulating the corn
corn, the model underestimated three parameters: ET, yield and behaviour under soil water shortage derives from the simulated
WUE. variations of CC during the growing season.
 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26
The inhibition of the canopy expansion, calculated by the model
under the first drought cycle on the STR2 treatments, appears to
be highly overestimated. In fact, it is possible to observe that, at
the end of drought cycle, CC suddenly disappears and it stands for
the condition of LAI dropping to zero. However, the measured CC
values indicate a decrease by 10% during the same period (Fig. 3(a)
and (b)). The absence of LAI acts firstly on simulated transpiration
and it explains the difference between the model output and the
measured ET. In the second half of the corn cycle, in comparison
with the measurements, AquaCrop simulates low values of daily ET.
This is due to the fact that simulated ET corresponds uniquely to the
soil evaporation, while measured values of ET take into account also
the transpiration losses (Fig. 5(e) and (f)). In turn, the absence of leaf
surface, as described by Raes et al. (2009), provokes a stop in the
biomass accumulation (Fig. 4(e) and (f)), and, finally the inhibition
of the process of yield formation (Table 4), and, as a consequence,
the inappropriate estimation of WUE (Fig. 8).
In the STR2 treatments the canopy expansion does not react to
the plant rehydration, after the irrigation supply (Fig. 1). In the case
of the STR1 treatments, at the end of a soil drought cycle, AquaCrop
simulates to a certain extent the CC raise (Fig. 3(a) and (b)).
These remarks are in agreement with those previously reported
by Heng et al. (2009), since they underline the need of revising,
under severe water treatments, the equations used in AquaCrop
for calculating the water stress. In particular, according the obser-
vations here reported, it is required to revise the estimate of the
canopy expansion coefficient.
In addition, such revision is supported by further considerations.
The same experimental data-set on corn was used in previous stud-
ies to validate the simulation provided by the CERES-Maize (Ben
Nouna et al., 2000) and the STICS (Katerji et al., 2010) models. In
the case of the STR2 treatments, the normalised differences (D)
between simulated and measured values of final yield ranged from
15% (in the case of STICS) to 22% (in the case of CERES-Maize).
Moreover, Doorenbos and Kassam (1979) proposed a linear
model relating the seasonal evapotranspiration deficit and the yield
deficit for corn. The slope of this linear relation is equal to 1.25. If
this simple linear model is used for both STR2 treatments, after
inputting the simulated values of the evapotranspiration deficit,
the resulting yield deficits of STR2 are equal to 44% and 37% of the
control treatments in 1996 and in 1997, respectively.
The simulations of yield, obtained on STR2 treatments by CERES-
Maize, STICS and Doorenbos and Kassam models, are more reliable
than the absence of a yield on this treatment, as simulated by
AquaCrop (Table 4).
Several authors have adopted the AquaCrop as a suitable
research tool for studying the optimisation of irrigation water sup-
ply and for recommending the appropriate water management
decisions (Andarzian et al., 2011; Rinaldi et al., 2011; Garcia-
Vila and Fereres, 2012). In the study from Garcia-Vila and Fereres
(2012), performed using four species, including corn, the authors
consider a wide range of irrigation water allocations to the crops
and derive economic analyses, which were obtained by introducing
an economic sub-routine into AquaCrop.
The last studies hypothesise that the validation of the AquaCrop,
performed exclusively on the basis of the yield measured in irri-
gated or moderately stressed crops, can be retained also as the
validation of this model for simulating other output (yield, ET,
and WUE), under any condition of plant water stress. The results
obtained in this study do not support this hypothesis, particularly in
the case of corn. However, this hypothesis could be considered real-
istic for the tomato crop if some corrections are taken into account
for the model outputs, such as those reported in Fig. 8 of this study.
The aptitude of the model to be used as a tool for irrigation
scheduling should be proven on the basis of its performance in sim-
ulating the daily ET. This parameter was never analysed in previous
25
studies under water stress conditions. On the seasonal scale, the ET
validation does not allow for demonstrating this aptitude of the
model. For example, the seasonal ET values simulated in this study
were close to those measured in tomato crops under all water treat-
ments. This low deviation could result from the model aptitude in
simulating daily ET close to those measured during the whole crop
season, as was observed in the case of the control treatment of
tomato in 2006. In addition, this low deviation could indicate that
the periods when the simulated daily ET is overestimated are bal-
anced by periods when the simulated daily ET is underestimated,
as was observed in the stressed treatments of tomato crops.
The model aptitude to simulate the daily ET appears to be
acceptable only in the case of the three control treatments in the
tomato crops. Nevertheless, two out of three treatments generated
RRMSE values equal to 29%, close to the threshold value of 30%,
which indicates poor quality of the simulation. Moreover, in control
treatments of corn and all stressed treatment of corn and tomato,
this aptitude was poor. The AquaCrop model does not appear to be
an innovative tool for managing irrigation water, as was previously
ascertained in cotton (Farahani et al., 2009).
It should be noted here that the AquaCrop model adopts the
Allen et al. (1998) approach to calculating ET, which is based on the
two-step approach: reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and crop
coefficient (Kc ). This double approach has generated much criti-
cism when it was applied, mainly in the Mediterranean region (Testi
et al., 2004; Katerji and Rana, 2006; Orgaz et al., 2007; Lovelli et al.,
2007; Irmak and Mutiibwa, 2009). Alternative solutions, based on
one steep approach, have been proposed to improve the ET calcu-
lation (Rana et al., 2012). To improve the simulation of the grain
yield in corn, Heng et al. (2009) attempted to increase by 15% the
ETo calculated according to Allen et al. (1998) but it was unsuccess-
ful. This result suggests avoiding alternative solutions in search of
a better determination of the daily ET.
5. Conclusions
Based on this study, a series of conclusions are derived which
could be taken into account for advancing the AquaCrop model.
Because the model performance has been demonstrated to vary
according the level of plant water stress, the model validation tests
in future should be carried out under very contrasting plant water
stress. The level of water stress, measured at the plant scale, should
be clearly identified in any further validation test of the model.
Additional validation tests under severe water deficit conditions
are required for some species. These tests will allow the proper
adjustment of the water stress coefficients which are now available
for the model users.
To improve the ET simulated by AquaCrop, simple corrections of
the ETo or Kc values are not appropriate. For calculating ET, alterna-
tive method, based on the one step approach, should be considered.
These concluding remarks, if correctly considered, can ame-
liorate and make more reliable the AquaCrop simulations and
any further analyses concerning the optimisation of the irrigation
strategies and the economic returns derived from the water supply.
References
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guide-
lines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage paper No.
56. FAO, Rome, pp. 300.
Andarzian, B., Bannayan, M., Steduto, P., Mazraeh, H., Barati, M.E., Barati, M.A., Rah-
nama, A., 2011. Validation and testing of the AquaCrop model under full and
deficit irrigated wheat production in Iran. Agric. Water Manage. 100, 1–8.
Belmans, C., Wesseling, J.G., Feddes, R.A., 1983. Simulation of the water balance of a
cropped soil: SWATRE. J. Hydrol. 63, 271–286.
Ben Nouna, B., Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., 2000. Using the CERES-Maize model in a
semi-arid Mediterranean environment. Evaluation of model performance. Eur.
J. Agron. 13, 309–322.
26 N. Katerji et al. / Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 14–26
Ben Nouna, B., Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., 2003. Using the CERES-maize model in a
semi-arid Mediterranean environment. New modelling of leaf area and water
stress functions. Eur. J. Agron. 19 (2), 115–123.
Brisson, N., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Jeuffroy, M.H., Ruget, F., Nicoullaud, B., Gate Ph
Devienne-Barret, F., Antonioletti, R., Durr, C., Richard, G., Beaudoin, N., Recous,
S., Tayot, X., Plenet, D., Cellier, P., Machet, J.M., Delecolle, R., 1998. STICS: a
generic model for the simulation of crops and their water and nitrogen bal-
ances. I. Theory and parametrization applied to wheat and corn. Agronomie 18,
311–346.
Brisson, N., Ruget, F., Gate Ph Lorgeou, J., Nicoullaud, B., Tayot, X., Plenet, D., Jeuffroy,
M.H., Bouthier, A., Ripoche, D., Mary, B., Justes, E., 2002. STICS a generic model
for simulating crops and their water and nitrogen balances. II. Model validation
for wheat and maize. Agronomie 22, 69–92.
Brisson, N., Gary, C., Justes, E., Roche, R., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Zimmer, D., Sierra,
J., Bertuzzui, P., Burger, P., Bussiere, F., Cabidoche, Y.M., Cellier, P., Debaeke, P.,
Gaudillere, J.P., Maraux, F., Seguin, B., Sinoquet, H., 2003. An overview of the crop
model STICS. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 309–332.
Campi, P., Palumbo, A.D., Mastrorilli, M., 2009. Effects of tree windbreak on micro-
climate and wheat productivity in a Mediterranean environment. Eur. J. Agron.
30, 220–227.
Castrignanò, A., Katerji, N., Karam, F., Mastrorilli, M., Hamdy, A., 1998. A modified
version of CERES-Maize model for predicting crop response to salinity stress.
Ecol. Model. 111, 107–120.
De Benedetto, D., Castrignano, A., Sollitto, D., Modugno, F., Buttafuoco, G., lo Papa, G.,
2012. Integrating geophysical and geostatistical techniques to map the spatial
variation of clay. Geoderma 171–172, 53–63.
Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H., Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving agricultural water use
efficiency in arid and semiarid areas of China. Agric. Water Manage. 80 (1–3),
23–40.
Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., 1979. Yield Response to Water. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No 33. FAO, Rome.
Farahani, H.J., Izzi, G., Oweis, T.Y., 2009. Parameterization and evaluation of the
AquaCrop model for full and deficit irrigated cotton. Agron. J. 101, 469–476.
Garcia-Vila, M., Fereres, E., 2012. Combining the simulation crop model AquaCrop
with an economic model for the optimization of irrigation management at farm
level. Eur. J. Agron. 36, 21–31.
Heng, L.K., Hsiao, T.C., Evett, S.R., Howell, T.A., Steduto, p., 2009. Testing of
FAO AquaCrop model for rainfed and irrigated maize. Agron. J. 101 (3),
488–498.
Hsiao, T., Steduto, P., Fereres, E., 2007. A systematic and quantitative approach to
improve water use efficiency in agriculture. Irrig. Sci. 25, 209–231.
Hsiao, T.C., Heng, L.K., Steduto, P., Raes, D., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop—model
parameterization and testing for maize. Agron. J. 101 (3), 448–459.
Irmak, S., Mutiibwa, D., 2009. On the dynamics of evaporative losses from
Penman–Monteith with fixed and variable canopy resistance during partial and
complete canopy. Trans. ASABE 52 (4), 1139–1153.
Jamieson, P.D., Porter, J.R., Wilson, D.R., 1991. A test of the computer simulation
model ARCWHEAT1 on wheat crops grown in New Zealand. Fields Crop Res. 27,
337–350.
Jones, C.A., Kiniry, J.R., 1986. CERES-Maize. A Simulation Model of Maize Growth and
Development. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, pp. 194.
Jones, C.A., Dyke, P.T., Williams, J.R., Kiniry, J.R., Benson, V.W., Griggs, R.H., 1991.
EPIC: an operational model for evaluation of agricultural sustainability. Agric.
Syst. 37 (4), 341–350.
Katerji, N., Bethenod, O., 1997. Comparaison du comportement hydrique et de la
capacité photosynthétique du mais et du tournesol en condition de contrainte
hydrique. Conclusions sur l’efficience de l’eau. Agronomie 17, 17–24.
Katerji, N., Rana, G., 2006. Modelling evapotranspiration of six irrigated crops under
Mediterranean climate conditions. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 138, 142–155.
Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., Rana, G., 2008. Water use efficiency of crops cultivated in
the Mediterranean region: Review and analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 28, 493–507.
Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., Cherni, H.E., 2010. Effects of corn deficit irrigation and
soil properties on water use efficiency. A 25-year analysis of a Mediterranean
environment using the STICS model. Eur. J. Agron. 32, 177–185.
Loague, K.M., Green, R.E., 1991. Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating
solute transport models: overview and application. J. Contam. Hydrol. 7, 51–73.
Lovelli, S., Perniola, M., Ferrara, A., Tommaso, T.D., 2007. Yield response factor to
water (ky) and water use efficiency of Carthamus tinctorius L. and Solanum mel-
ongena L. Agric. Water Manage. 92, 73–80.
Lhomme, J.P., Katerji, N., 1991. A simple modelling of crop water balance for agrom-
eteorological application. Ecol. Model. 57, 11–25.
Marletto, V., Zinoni, F., Criscuolo, L., Fontana, G., Marchesi, S., Morgillo, A., Van Soe-
tendael, M., Ceotto, E., Andersen, U., 2005. Evaluation of downscaled DEMETER
multi-model ensemble seasonal hindcasts in a northern Italy location by means
of a model of wheat growth and soil water balance. Tellus A 57 (3), 488–497.
Marletto, V., Ventura, V., Fontana, G., Tomei, F., 2007. Wheat growth simulation and
yield prediction with seasonal forecasts and a numerical model. Agric. Forest
Meteorol. 147 (1-2), 71–79.
Mastrorilli, M., Katerji, N., Rana, G., Ben Nouna, B., 1998. Daily actual evapotranspi-
ration measured with TDR technique in Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Forest
Meteorol. 90, 81–89.
Mastrorilli, M., Katerji, N., Ben Nouna, B., 2003. Using the CERES-maize model in
a semi-arid Mediterranean environment. Validation of three revised versions.
Eur. J. Agron. 19 (2), 125–134.
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Coordinating leading authors, 2007. Pathways for increas-
ing water productivity. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. International
Water Management Institute, London: Earthscan and Colombo, pp. 279–310.
Orgaz, F., Villalobos, F.J., Testi, L., Fereres, E., 2007. A model of daily mean canopy
conductance for calculating transpiration of olive canopies. Funct. Plant Bi 34,
178–188.
Palumbo, A.D., Vitale, D., Campi, P., Mastrorilli, M., 2012. Time trend in reference
evapotranspiration: analysis of a long series of agrometeorological measure-
ments in Southern Italy. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 25, 395–411.
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to
simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description.
Agron. J. 101, 438–447.
Rana, G., Katerji, N., 1998. A measurement based sensitivity analysis of
Penman–Monteith actual evapotranspiration model for crops of different height
and in contrasting water status. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 60, 141–149.
Rana, G., Katerji, N., Lazzara, P., Ferrara, R.M., 2012. Operational determination of
daily actual evapotranspiration of irrigated tomato crops under Mediterranean
conditions by one-step and two-step models: multiannual and local evaluations.
Agric. Water Manage. 115, 285–296.
Rinaldi, M., Garofalo, P., Rubino, P., Steduto, P., 2011. Processing tomatoes under
different irrigation regimes in Southern Italy: agronomic and economic assess-
ments in a simulation case study. Ital. J. Agrometeorol. 3, 39–56.
Ritchie, J.T., 1972. Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete
cover. Water Resour. Res. 8 (5), 1204–1213.
Ritchie, J.T., Basso, B., 2008. Water use efficiency is not constant when crop water
supply is adequate or fixed: the role of agronomic management. Eur. J. Agron.
28 (3), 273–281.
Ritchie, J.T., Godwin, D.C., Otter-Nacke, S., 1985. CERES-Wheat: A Simulation Model
of Wheat Growth and Development. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station, TX.
Scholander, P.F., Hammel, H.T., Bradstreet, E.D., Hemmingsen, E.A., 1965. Sap pres-
sure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339–346.
Steduto, P., Raes, D., Hsiao, T.C., Fcreres, E., Heng, L.K., Howell, T.A., Evett, S.R., Rojas-
Lara, B.A., Farahani, H.J., Izzi, G., Oweis, T.Y., Wani, S.P., Hoogeveen, J., Geerts, S.,
2009. Concepts and applications of AquaCrop: the FAO crop water productivity
model. In: Cao, W., White, J.W., Wang, E. (Eds.), Crop Modeling and Decision
Support. Tsinghua University Press, pp. 175–191.
Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., Raes, D., 2012. Crop Yield Response to Water –
FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 66, Rome (Italy), 500.
Stewart, J.L., Danielson, R.E., Hanks, R.J., Jackson, E.B., Hagon, R.M., Pruit, W.O.,
Franklin, W.T., Riley, J.P., 1977. Optimizing Crop Production Through Control
of Water and Salinity Levels in the Soil. Utah Water Res. Lab., PR 151-1, Logan,
Utah, pp. 191.
Stöckle, C.O., Nelson, R.L., 2000. CropSyst User’s Manual (Version 3.0), Biological
Systems Engineering Dept. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Stöckle, C.O., Donatelli, M., Nelson, R., 2003. CropSyst, a cropping systems simulation
model Europ. J. Agron. 18, 289–307.
Stricevic, R., Cosic, M., Djurovic, N., Pejic, B., Maksimovic, L., 2011. Assessment
of the FAO AquaCrop model in the simulation of rainfed and supplemen-
tally irrigated maize, sugar beet and sunflower. Agric. Water Manage. 98 (10),
1615–1621.
Testi, L., Villalobos, F.J., Orgaz, F., 2004. Evapotranspiration of a young irrigated olive
orchard in southern Spain. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 21 (1–2), 1–18.
Todorovic, M., Albrizio, R., Zivotic, L., Abi Saab, M.T., Stöckle, C., Steduto, P., 2009.
Assessment of AquaCrop, CropSyst, and WOFOST models in the simulation of
sunflower growth under different water regimes. Agron. J. 3, 509–521.
Van Diepen, C.A., Wolf, J., Van Keulen, H., Rappoldt, C., 1989. WOFOST. A simulation
model of crop production. Soil Use Manage. 5, 16–24.
Zwart, S.J., Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity
values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton, and maize. Agric. Water Manage. 69,
115–133.