Received: 29 May 2023 Revised: 21 November 2023 Accepted: 11 December 2023

DOI: 10.1002/ird.2917

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of the AquaCrop and CERES-Maize models for

simulating maize phenology, grain yield,
evapotranspiration and water productivity under different
irrigation and nitrogen levels

Ebrahim Amiri 1 | Suat Irmak 2 | Davood Barari Tari 3

1
Department of Water Engineering,
Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Lahijan, Iran
2
Department of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering, The Penn State
University, State College, Pennsylvania,
USA
3
Department of Agrotechnology,
Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Amol, Iran
Correspondence
Suat Irmak, Department of Agricultural
and Biological Engineering, The Penn
State University, 105A Agricultural
Engineering Building, University Park,
State College, PA 16802, USA.
Email: sfi5068@psu.edu
Abstract
The CERES-Maize and AquaCrop models were evaluated for their perfor-
mance in simulating maize (Zea mays L.) phenology, evapotranspiration
(ETc), grain yield and crop water productivity (CWP). Model input data for
calibration, validation and simulations were obtained from field experiments
conducted from 2011 to 2014 that imposed three different irrigation levels
(full irrigation treatment [FIT], limited irrigation treatment [75% FIT] and
rainfed control) and five nitrogen (N) management treatments. Both models
performed well in simulating the maize phenological stages, with simulated
values being within 1–4 days of measured values for both models. Both
models simulated grain yield well during the calibration with a normalized
root mean squared error (RMSEn) of 5% (0.6 t ha⁻1) for CERES-Maize and
8% (0.80 t ha⁻1) for AquaCrop. The model error for ETc varied from
2 to
+14% for CERES-Maize and ranged from
3 to +11% for AquaCrop. High
N levels resulted in higher accuracy in predicting ETc. The AquaCrop model
performed better than CERES-Maize in simulating irrigated crop production
under different N levels under rainfed conditions. The performance of both
models for rainfed systems was poorer than their performance in irrigated
systems, indicating that both models need further improvements in simulat-
ing rainfed maize production systems.

KEYWORDS
crop production, model error, modelling, Nebraska, water requirement

Article title in French: Comparaison des modèles AquaCrop et CERES-maïs pour simuler la phénologie du maïs, le rendement en grains,
l'évapotranspiration et la productivité de l'eau sous différents niveaux d'irrigation et d'azote.
Disclaimer: Mentions of commercial products are solely for the information of the readers and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation
for use by the authors or their institutions.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. Irrigation and Drainage published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage.

Irrig. and Drain. 2024;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ird 1

 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 AMIRI ET AL.

Résumé
Les modèles CERES-Maïs et AquaCrop ont été évalués compte tenu de leurs per-
formances dans la simulation de la phénologie du maïs (Zea mays L.), de l'évapo-
transpiration (ETc), du rendement en grains et de la productivité de l'eau des
cultures (CWP). Les données d'entrée du modèle pour l'étalonnage, la validation
et les simulations ont été obtenues à partir d'expériences sur le terrain menées de
2011 à 2014 qui imposaient trois niveaux d'irrigation différents [traitement d'irri-
gation complet (FIT), traitement d'irrigation limité (FIT à 75%) et contrôle plu-
vial] et cinq traitements de gestion de niveaux d'azote (N). Les deux modèles ont
bien fonctionné dans la simulation des stades phénologiques du maïs, les valeurs
simulées se situant dans un délai de 1 à 4 jours par rapport aux valeurs mesurées
pour les deux modèles. Les deux modèles ont bien simulé le rendement en grains
lors de l'étalonnage avec une erreur moyenne quadratique normalisée (RMSEn)
de 5% (0,6 t ha⁻1) pour CERES-Maïs et de 8% (0,80 t ha⁻1) pour AquaCrop.
L'erreur du modèle pour l'ETc variait de
2 à 14% pour le CERES-Maïs et de -3 à
11% pour l'AquaCrop. Des concentrations élevées d'azote ont entraîné une plus
grande précision dans la prévision de l'ETc. Le modèle AquaCrop a donné de
meilleurs résultats que le CERES-Maïs dans la simulation de la production de
cultures irriguées à différents niveaux d'azote dans des conditions pluviales. La
performance des deux modèles pour les systèmes pluviaux était inférieure à celle
des systèmes irrigués, ce qui indique que les deux modèles doivent encore être
améliorés dans la simulation des systèmes de production de maïs pluvial.

MOTS CLÉS
production végétale, erreur de modèle, modélisation, Nebraska, besoin en eau

1 | INTRODUCTION obtaining high crop yield. However, maize has a greater

Maize is one of the most widely used cereal crops world-
wide (Zoghdan, 2021). It is grown as an essential grain crop
for consumption in many places and purposes both by
humans and animals (Undie et al., 2012), and it provides
substantial economic benefits to farming and related com-
munities and industries. It is one of the primary carbohy-
drate sources for humans and animals and is used as a fuel
source in some countries. The adaptability of maize to vari-
ous climatic and soil conditions has made it widely culti-
vated worldwide. In terms of cultivated land area, maize is
the third largest food crop globally, after wheat and rice.
However, to achieve successful maize production, knowl-
edge of various management techniques is needed, such as
selecting the appropriate planting dates, choosing hybrids
suitable for particular locations, adjusting the planting
depth and density, providing adequate soil fertility and
ensuring adequate water supply, which significantly con-
tributes to achieving high yields (Fathi et al., 2020). Maize
is among the most sensitive grain crops to water and nutri-
ent availability, particularly nitrogen resources, for
potential for productivity per unit of water and nitrogen
than other cereal crops. Maize is not solely impacted by the
amount of water or nitrogen but also by the timing of their
application (Louise & James, 1996). While, in practice, most
producers apply seasonal crop N requirements in one appli-
cation (mostly in the autumn), N should be applied in split
applications with the growing season to maximize N use
efficiency, prevent N losses and reduce N leaching potential
to the surface and groundwater sources. Split N application
meets crop requirements when needed and plays a crucial
role in enhancing plant growth, yield and crop water pro-
ductivity (CWP) (Irmak et al., 2022). Water is also a critical
input for high maize yield, as it is reduced by water stress,
especially during the most water-sensitive stages of tassel-
ling, silking and grain filling (Otegui et al., 1995).
Field experiments gather data that are used to
develop, calibrate and validate simulation models that
can be used to predict the response to environmental var-
iables (water, nutrients, soil, climate, etc.) as well as man-
agement practices, differences in cultivars and genetic
attributes. However, conducting field research to

AMIRI ET AL.
determine these responses and their interactive impacts
on plant productivity is a difficult and critical task; being
impacted by extreme climatic events that may require
repeating field experiments to answer complicated ques-
tions may not be possible in some cases. One way to over-
come these limitations is by using crop simulation
models. These models are cost-effective and simplified
strategies for testing various management techniques,
providing useful data where field analysis is infeasible or
costly (Sandhu & Irmak, 2019a, 2019b). Numerous crop
simulation models have been developed with varying
levels of complexity, input requirements and user friend-
liness, such as Crop-Syst (Stöckle et al., 2003), EPIC
(Cavero et al., 2000), CERES-Maize (Decision Support
System for Agrotechnology Transfer, DSSAT) (Jones
et al., 2003), AquaCrop (Raes et al., 2009; Steduto
et al., 2009) and WOFOST (Boogaard et al., 1998). Crop
simulation models can aid in understanding the correla-
tions between various crop production factors, such as
irrigation, N, weeds and disease, and their impact on
yield and productivity (Hoogenboom et al., 2019).
Farmers can use model recommendations to input use
efficiency for specific farming conditions. Crop models
predict a crop's growth, development and yield based
on a combination of genetic coefficients and relevant
environmental factors. All crop models are a combina-
tion of mechanistic and empirical models. The former
are based on physical and physiological processes, while
the latter fit simulations to the measured data. Models
entail dozens or hundreds of algorithms with mostly
determined constants. Models simulate complex crop pro-
cesses involving growth, development, biomass accumu-
lation and yield production reactions to environmental
variables (Monteith, 1996). To effectively analyse and
interpret the results of models, their structures, modules
and assumptions must be understood to make conclu-
sions and strategies. The crop simulation models used in
this study were the CERES-Maize model (radiation/
energy-driven) and the AquaCrop model (water-driven).
Both are adaptable to a variety of climates, soil types and
management conditions for simulating a variety of crop
response variables. In some studies, the CERES-Maize
model showed inaccuracy in water and N dynamics,
implying that the growth and soil water modules require
improvement for accuracy (Kanda et al., 2018). According
to Menefee et al. (2021), the coefficient of determination
(R2) between CERES-Maize and measured ETc was low
due to overestimation of simulated ETc over 3 years. They
found that the average per cent root mean squared error
(RMSE) for daily ETc simulation across all 3 years was
35% for the Priestley–Taylor method and 30% for the
FAO-56 method. Potential sources of overestimation
included estimation of evapotranspiration (ETc), crop
coefficient estimation and soil water balance simulation
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
in vertisols with high clay mineral content. The simula-
tion results indicate the necessity to enhance ET estima-
tion abilities in rainfed systems compared with irrigated
crops. Based on a metadata analysis carried out of all
studies on ETc modelling for maize using CERES-Maize,
the model often performs well in irrigated situations
(error <10%) but performs poorly in rainfed systems
(Basso et al., 2016). Kimball et al. (2019) noted that most
ETc simulations by different models, including CERES-
Maize, performed poorly under waterlogged and very dry
conditions. The impact of agricultural ETc on crop pro-
ductivity, and therefore economic yield, is well known
because of its interdependence with CO2 assimilation
(Sinclair & Muchow, 2001). The CERES-Maize model is
capable of accurately simulating crop yield, ET and soil
water content in response to various irrigation regimes in
dry and semi-arid climates (Anothai et al., 2013). Accord-
ing to the study by Babel et al. (2019), both the AquaCrop
and CERES-Maize models under- and overestimated the
soil water content, respectively, on the basis of results
from the Himalayan region of India. The prediction of
grain yield using the AquaCrop model had a 1.0–2.8%
prediction error during calibration based on irrigation,
soil water depletion and maize N levels. The model
calibrated for grain production with intense soil mois-
ture depletion had a 4.4–12.3% prediction error
(Amiri & Abedinpour, 2020). With vigorous calibration,
validation and performance analyses, crop growth models
can be effective tools in developing management strate-
gies and forecasting current and future productivity
metrics. In many cases, models can also be valuable
tools for researching different and complicated scenar-
ios for which conducting field research may not be fea-
sible. In most cases, crop models are underutilized in
practical applications in simulating maize phenology,
yield, ETc and CWP response to water and N. Little
research has been done on comparing the performance
of different models under various irrigation and N man-
agement conditions using long-term data from field
research. Modelling and evaluation can be very benefi-
cial in developing effective management strategies to
enhance crop productivity and minimize environmental
contamination. The practices should be communicated to
producers for more efficient crop production. Many
studies have been conducted in the field of exploiting
multi-year field data to assess the efficiency of varying
models in simulating maize plant traits. In light of
extensive previous research on calibrating and evaluating
CERES-Maize and AquaCrop models by various scholars,
considerable gaps still persist in comprehending the
implications of various treatments on the evaluation of
these models, primarily in the context of shifting climatic
factors and the necessity for sustainable agricultural prac-
tices. Our current study takes a holistic approach to

4 AMIRI ET AL.
appraising the aforementioned models, encompassing
diverse environmental variables as well as undisclosed
managerial strategies. This investigation seeks to enhance
the precision of replication and prediction, which has
important ramifications for augmenting crop output and
mitigating environmental degradation. In addition, this
research offers a concrete application of these models in
simulating maize phenology, yield, ETc and CWP, which
have not been adequately tapped into prior practical
applications. The objectives of this research were to cali-
brate and validate the CERES-Maize and AquaCrop
models and evaluate their performance for simulating
maize phenology, growth, grain yield, ETc and CWP
response to different irrigation and N levels.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Field research
This research used field research data generated at the Uni-
versity of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) South Central Agricul-
tural Laboratory at advanced irrigation engineering, ETc,
plant physiology and crop production research facilities.
The research data sets published by Rudnick and Irmak
(2014) and Rudnick et al. (2016) were used in the model
calibration, validation and comparisons for performance
analyses. The research site is located at latitude 40 430 N
and longitude 98 80 W at an elevation of 552 m above
mean sea level near Clay Center, Neb., USA (Irmak, 2010,
2015a, 2015b). Additional information about soil and crop
management practices and other information are provided
in Rudnick and Irmak (2014) and Rudnick et al. (2016),
and those resources and procedures relating to this study's
aims will be presented here. Field experiments were con-
ducted in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 in a factorial-based
randomized block design with three replications of each
treatment and the same management procedures in the
same field (Rudnick et al., 2016; Rudnick & Irmak, 2014).
The research was conducted using a split-plot design with
irrigation level as the main treatment (primary effect) and
in-season N fertilizer in the form of urea ammonium
nitrate (UAN 32%) as the subtreatment (secondary effect).
The irrigation treatments investigated were full irrigation
treatment (FIT), 75% FIT and rainfed. The N fertilizer
treatments were 0, 84, 140, 196 and 252 kg ha⁻1. The
within-field locations for each plot were re-randomized
each year. The N treatments within each irrigation treat-
ment were eight rows wide and 50 m long, with 0.76-m
row spacing in a north–south planting direction. Experi-
ments were conducted on a Hastings silt loam (20% clay,
65% silt, 15% sand), which is a well-drained upland soil
with a permanent wilting point and field capacity of 0.14
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
and 0.34 m3 m
3, respectively, and a saturation point of
0.53 m3 m
3 (Irmak, 2010). Maize roots typically reach a
depth of 1.20–1.50 m at the research site (Irmak, 2015a,
2015b). A GPS-guided linear (lateral)-move irrigation sys-
tem (Valmont Industries, Valley, Neb., USA) with variable
rate irrigation and fertigation capabilities was used to irri-
gate the field. Irrigations were managed based on the soil
water status of FIT-252 kg N ha⁻1. In each irrigation, soil
water was replenished to approximately 90% of field capac-
ity to reserve soil water storage capacity to accommodate
any potential rainfall meeting crop water requirements
and reduce irrigation requirements, which can result in
increased CWP. In each irrigation, 75% of the FITs received
25% less irrigation water than the FITs, and there were no
irrigation applications in the rainfed treatment. Typically,
irrigations were applied between June and early to mid-
September. Full irrigation was applied when soil water
depletion was approximately 40–50% of the water-holding
capacity. The soil water content (SWC) was measured
using a Troxler Model 4300 (Troxler Electronics Laborato-
ries, Research Triangle Park, NC) neutron probe at rooting
depths of 0–1.50 m at 0.30 m increments on a weekly basis
(sometimes twice a week) in all treatments in all growing
seasons. Phenological observations were made every 10–
14 days to record the growth and development stages of
maize across all treatments from emergence until physio-
logical maturity. Field records were kept for the days of
emergence, silking, anthesis, maturity, maximum canopy
cover (CC) and the onset of senescence. Days to flowering,
days to maturity, maximum CC and the start of senescence
were also recorded. Based on neutron gauge measurements
of SWC, a universal soil water balance method was used to
quantify seasonal crop ETc:
ETc ¼ P þ I þ U
R  ΔS
D ð1Þ
where ETc is crop ETc (mm), P is precipitation (mm), I is
irrigation (mm), U is upward water flux (mm), R is run-
off (mm), ΔS is the change in soil water storage
(mm) between the beginning and end of the growing sea-
son and D is deep percolation from the crop root zone
(mm). Because the groundwater depth was over 30 m in
the experimental field (Irmak, 2015a), upward water flux
was considered negligible. The United States Department
of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA-NRCS, 1985) curve number method was used to
calculate run-off from individual treatments separately. A
daily soil water balance computer program was used to
calculate deep percolation (Bryant et al., 1992; Djaman &
Irmak, 2012; Payero et al., 2009). The CWP was calcu-
lated for all treatments for each growing season. The
term ‘productivity’ refers to the ratio between the prod-
uct (e.g. yield) produced per unit of water (e.g. ETc) used.

AMIRI ET AL.
This is a similar concept of the CWP term introduced by
Molden (1997), which has been gaining widespread
acceptance in the scientific community and literature
(Fernandez et al., 1996). The CWP was computed as the
ratio of grain yield to ETc:
CWP ¼ Y =ETc ð2Þ
where CWP is expressed as kg m⁻3, Y is grain yield
(g m⁻2) and ETc is in mm.
2.2 | Model calibration and validation
Based on daily climate data, soil and management
parameters specific to the site and field experiment data
collected from 2011 to 2014, the CERES-Maize model
version 4.7 was calibrated. All calibrations were con-
ducted based on the models' reference manuals. The
AquaCrop model, as parameterized by Hsiao et al.
(2009), offers globally applicable crop default settings.
However, the user needs to enter additional
cultivar-specific crop information and calibrate the
model, including conservative parameters, to achieve
accurate results for a given situation. In this study, both
models were first run with default maize parameters with
poor results, indicating the need to calibrate the model
for specific conditions; therefore, the models were cali-
brated with crop, soil, water and climate variables
observed from the field experiments in 2011 and 2012.
According to Sandhu and Irmak (2019a), most variables
were simulated unsatisfactorily with the default parame-
ters of the AquaCrop model. After calibration, they
reported that the model adequately simulated most vari-
ables. In this study, 2011 and 2012 data were calibrated
using the same set of conservative and calibrated parame-
ters, and there was no separate calibration for each year.
A full assessment of the model with many field observa-
tions is needed to understand its behaviour and the tem-
poral variation induced by varied weather parameters,
irrigation, and crop and soil management variables. Thir-
teen parameters of the AquaCrop model were fine-tuned
using a trial-and-error approach to align the simulated
grain yield, biomass and water productivity with
observed data. Field experimental data from two irrigated
years (2011 and 2012) involving various treatment combi-
nations (as shown in Table 6) were utilized for calibra-
tion. The same treatments from the following 2 years of
data (2013 and 2014) were used for model validation.
Subsequently, the model underwent calibration using
site-specific data, encompassing information on crops,
soil properties, water and climate variables. Calibrated
parameters were iteratively adjusted to ensure close
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
alignment with our field observations. Key parameters
addressed in the calibration process included those gov-
erning CC dynamics and soil water dynamics. Addition-
ally, adjustments to biomass and yield were made by
modifying the water productivity and transpiration crop
coefficient (KcTr,x). The calibration of the CERES-Maize
model involved cultivar-specific observations and
employed DSSAT module calibration. Data on weather,
soil properties and management practices were integrated
into the model runs. Crop development and phenology are
affected by cultivar characteristics and air temperature,
among other factors. Growing degree day (GDD) and cal-
endar day (CDD) modes are available for running the
AquaCrop model. For this study, GDD was selected. A
trial-and-error approach was used to evaluate the parame-
ters iteratively until the simulation values were close to
what was observed in the field. Afterward, the parameters
affecting soil water dynamics were calibrated, and then
biomass and yield were calibrated by adjusting the water
productivity and transpiration crop coefficient (KcTr,x).
The phenological stages of crops are critical to estimating
crop development accurately. To simulate canopy devel-
opment accurately, the first estimates of the growth stages
were derived from field observations, and model simula-
tions were further adjusted. Time before blooming and
yield formation, time until the harvest is achieved and
time before flowering are factors that influence the repro-
ductive growth phase. When the crop reached full CC,
the blooming stage was initiated. The maximum rooting
depth was reached shortly before the onset of senescence,
and the rooting depth at the location was estimated to be
1.5 m. For maximum KcTr,x, a default value of 1.05 was
used. The calibrated water productivity for the C4 crops
was 31.7 kg m-3, which is within the recommended range.
All of the parameters mentioned above were calibrated
under conditions without water stress (i.e. FIT). Stress fac-
tors affecting canopy expansion, stomatal closure and
crop senescence were simulated and observed for condi-
tions of water-stressed treatments (i.e. rainfed and limited
irrigation treatments). Salinity factors were not considered
during the modeling since the research site did not have
any salinity issues.
With the CERES-Maize model, cultivar-specific
parameter calibration was conducted using DSSAT mod-
ule calibration. A genetic coefficient was determined
using cultivar-specific observations. Weather data (daily
maximum and minimum air temperature, rainfall and
incoming short-wave radiation), soil surface information
(slope, colour, drainage, presence of stones/gravel in the
surface), soil profile information as a function of soil
depth (bulk density, drained upper limit, lower limit, N,
available phosphorus, soil organic matter, cation
exchange capacity, soil pH, soil texture, level of root
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 AMIRI ET AL.

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
abundance across depth), cation exchange capacity, soil 1 Xn
pH, soil texture, level of root abundance (dry biomass of RMSE ¼ i¼1 i
ð S
Oi Þ 2 ð3Þ
n
leaves, stem and grain), crop management data (prior
crop harvested specifications), initial soil moisture con- P P P
Si :Oi
Si : Oi
tent before planting, plant density, planting date, plant R2 ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 2 P qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 2 P ffi ð4Þ
population density per m2, date of harvest, fertilizer (type S i
ð S i Þ2  Oi
ð Oi Þ 2
of fertilizer, date of application, amount applied, method
of application) and soil management (tillage) information RMSE
RMSEn ¼  100 ð5Þ
and data were all incorporated into the model runs. For o
the purpose of deriving genetic coefficients for CERES-
Maize cultivars, the generalized likelihood uncertainty P
n
ð Oi
S i Þ 2
estimation (GLUE) approach (He et al., 2020) was used. i
1
IOA ¼ 1
n     ð6Þ
P 
GLUE was run 6000 times for each cultivar's parameters, S i
O  þ  O i
O Þ 2
and then human modifications were performed using i
1
Boote et al.'s (1996) phenology and growth factor data
approach until acceptable simulation fits were obtained. ð S i
Oi Þ
Pe ¼  100 ð7Þ
To calibrate the models, 13 parameters of the AquaCrop Oi
model were adjusted to match the simulated grain yield,
ETc, water productivity, days to flowering and day where Si and Oi are the model-simulated and field-
maturity of the model with the observed data. The observed values, respectively; O is the mean of the
CERES-Maize outputs were also calibrated for six genetic observed data; and n is the number of the modelled and
coefficients to match the experimental values for grain observation data. An analysis of the differences between
yield, days to flowering, days to maturity and ETc. Field the simulated and observed outputs was conducted by
experiments of various treatment combinations from using the paired t-test. The performance of an RMSEn-
2011 and 2012 were used to calibrate the model. based simulation model is considered to be most satisfac-
tory/acceptable if it is below 10%, good enough if it is
between 10 and 20%, fair if it is between 20 and 30% and
2.2.1 | Model performance assessments poor if it is above 30%, according to Jamieson et al.
(1991).
Model performance comparisons with respect to field-
measured data can provide important information for
practitioners, users and other professionals as to which 3 | RESULTS A ND DISCUSSION
model would best fit their location, crop and soil manage-
ment conditions and climate and which model requires 3.1 | Plant phenology
what input variables and parameters and their availabil-
ity so that educated decisions can be made as to which The model calibration was carried out for both models
model to adopt for simulations. Based on the data col- using default parameters and the measured data. The
lected during field experiments, the model's performance input for the CERES-Maize model includes genetically
was compared with regard to varying levels of irrigation calibrated coefficients that are specific to the crop variety
and N application in 2011 and 2012 for calibration and being used (Table 1). Table 2 presents the input variables
2013 and 2014 for validation. Five variables (grain yield, and crop parameters that were utilized for the AquaCrop
ETc, water productivity, days to flowering and maturity) model simulations. Tables 3 and 4 represent the simula-
were simulated by both models with the calibrated tion of maize plant phenological characteristics in the
parameters, and the results were compared with field Ceres-Maize and AquaCrop models, respectively. Each N
experiment data for the corresponding years. To assess and irrigation treatment scenario was taken into
the simulation/performance accuracy and compare the consideration for this evaluation. Table 3 displays the
simulated and observed results, several statistical indica- performance statistics of the maize module in the
tors were used, including the RMSE (Equation (3)), the CERES-Maize model after calibration. The simulated
coefficient of determination (R2; Equation (4)), normal- duration from planting to flowering and physiological
ized RMSE (RMSEn; Equation (5)), index of agreement maturity closely matched the observed data set. Table 3
(IOA; Equation (6)), paired t-test, and model error or per shows that the simulated time periods from planting to
cent deviation from the field-measured data (Pe; flowering and from planting to physiological maturity
Equation (7)): closely matched the observed data set with an RMSEn of
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AMIRI ET AL. 7

TABLE 1 Genotype-specific parameters for maize varieties used in the CERES-Maize model.

Parameter/variable Plant development Value Unit


P1 Thermal time from seedling emergence to the end 255 C days
of juvenile phase
P2 Delay in development for each hour that day- 0.76 Days h⁻1
length is above 12.5 h

P5 Thermal time from silking to physiological 840 C days
maturity (growth aspects)
G2 Maximum kernel number per plant 650 Unitless
G3 Kernel growth rate during linear grain-filling 10.20 mg day⁻1
stage under optimum conditions

PHINT Thermal time between successive leaf tip 38.9 C days tip⁻1
appearance

T A B L E 2 Input data information/parameters for maize used in
the AquaCrop model simulations.
Variable/input data Value
Base temperature 0 C
Cut-off temperature 30
Canopy growth coefficient (CGC) 0.16
Canopy decline coefficient (CDC) at 0.135
senescence
Maximum rooting depth (m) 1.5
Maximum canopy cover (CCx) 0.94
Normalized water productivity (WP) 32
Reference harvest index (HIo) 45
Time from sowing to emergence 72
Time from sowing to start of flowering 900
Time from sowing to start of senescence 1284
Time from sowing to physiological 1560
maturity
Length of the flowering stage 156
Abbreviation: GDD, growing degree day.
3% for both days to flowering and maturity. The CERES-
Maize model had R2 values of 0.95 and 0.90 for days to
flowering and days to maturity, respectively (Table 3).
The IOA for days to maturity was 0.91, while for days to
flowering, it was 0.80. The percentage error (Pe) for phe-
nological phases ranged from
4 to +3% for days to flow-
ering and from
4 to +4% for days to maturity (Table 3).
The strong concurrence between the simulated and
observed values indicated that, under the conditions of
this study, CERES-Maize was highly effective in simulat-
ing phenological variables. The simulations that utilized
the calibration data set exhibited a strong correlation
with the measured values. AquaCrop effectively
simulated the duration until flowering and maturity as
well. For the simulated crop variety, the RMSE, RMSEn,
IOA and R2 values were 2 days, 3%, 0.9 and 0.8, respec-
Unit tively, for the duration until flowering and 4 days, 3%,
 0.89 and 0.65, respectively, for the duration until maturity

(Table 4). The Pe for the duration until flowering ranged
C
from
3 to +3%, while for the duration until maturity, it
% day⁻1 ranged from
6% to 0 (Table 4). Under different water
% day⁻1 and N levels, the Pe considering all these variables was
fairly low, indicating that the models were able to simu-
m late days to flowering and physiological maturity ade-
% quately. The calibration of both models employing
kg/m3 default parameters and measured data has yielded prom-
ising outcomes. In particular, the phenological variables
%
exhibited a remarkable congruence with the observed
GDD
data set, denoted by the low root mean square error of
GDD normalized RMSEn values for both days to flowering and
GDD days to maturity. The CERES-Maize model has demon-
GDD strated a notable efficacy in simulating phenological vari-
ables. It is pertinent to emphasize that these simulations
GDD were executed within the specific confines of this study,
underscoring the model's adaptability to the experimental
context. In a similar vein, the AquaCrop model has effec-
tively delineated the temporal dynamics until flowering
and maturity, albeit with slightly elevated RMSEn values
in comparison to the CERES-Maize model. The outcomes
posit that with judicious calibration, AquaCrop holds
potential for furnishing precise estimations of these criti-
cal phenological phases.
3.2 | Grain yield
The results of comparisons of the models under different
treatments are presented in Tables 5 and 6. In these
tables, the calibration values were obtained from the
average data of 2011 and 2012, while the validation
values were obtained from the average data of 2013 and
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 AMIRI ET AL.

T A B L E 3 Simulated and measured

Days to flowering Days to maturity
days after planting to flowering and
Year Measured Simulated Pe (%) Measured Simulated Pe (%) physiological maturity for growing
2011 75 76 1 130 132 2 seasons of 2011–2014 for the CERES-
Maize model.
2012 74 71
4 130 125
4
2013 76 78 3 136 142 4
2014 80 81 1 146 152 4
Mean 76 77 0 136 138 2
N 4 4
RMSE 2 4
RMSEn 3 3
IOA 0.80 0.91
2
R 0.95 0.90

Abbreviations: IOA, index of agreement; N, number of observations; Pe, per cent error; RMSE, root mean
squared error; RMSEn, normalized root mean squared error.

T A B L E 4 Simulated and measured

Days to flowering Days to maturity
days after planting to flowering and
Year Measured Simulated Pe (%) Measured Simulated Pe (%) physiological maturity for growing
2011 75 75 0 130 129
1 seasons of 2011–2014 for the AquaCrop
model.
2012 74 76 3 130 130 0
2013 76 75
1 136 131
4
2014 80 78
3 146 137
6
Mean 76 76 0 136 132
3
N 4 4
RMSE 2 4
RMSEn 3 3
IOA 0.89 0.77
2
R 0.79 0.65

Abbreviations: IOA, index of agreement; N, number of observations; Pe, per cent error; RMSE, root mean
squared error; RMSEn, normalized root mean squared error.

2014. Table 5 shows the CERES-Maize grain yield simu-
lation, which was calibrated with an RMSEn best of 5%
and validated with an RMSEn of 10%. The AquaCrop
model had an RMSE of 0.8 t ha⁻1, RMSEn of 8% and R2
of 0.83 with an IOA of 0.96 during the calibration. How-
ever, during validation, these statistics were 1.03 t ha⁻1,
12%, 0.94 and 0.98 for the same variables, respectively.
Table 6 provides further details on the comparison of the
two models. During the calibration period, the measured
grain yield varied from 8.1 to 14.4 t ha⁻1. The CERES-
Maize simulated grain yield values closely followed the
measured values and varied from 8.83 to 13.3 t ha⁻1. In
the calibration, the AquaCrop model-estimated grain
yield varied from 7.1 to 14.2 t ha⁻1. The CERES-Maize
model calibration error for grain yield varied from
5 to
+13%, while the AquaCrop model error varied from
17
to +7%. During validation, the measured grain yield
varied from 5.3 to 11.6 t ha⁻1 for different treatments. The
CERES-Maize simulated grain yield values varied from
6.2 to 11.4 t ha⁻1 and the AquaCrop grain yield simula-
tions varied from 6.1 to 11.9 t ha⁻1. The model error for
grain yield varied from
8 to +16% for CERES-Maize
and from
5 to +16% for AquaCrop. Despite AquaCrop
underestimating the yield more than CERES-Maize, its
simulations were more accurate based on Figures 1–4.
Both models simulated yields well, with most data points
distributed around the 1 : 1 line. Both models performed
strongly when simulating the grain yield for maize under
different irrigation and N management conditions.
Although the CERES-Maize model had a lower error dur-
ing calibration, the AquaCrop model had higher accu-
racy. During validation, both models had similar errors,
but AquaCrop tended to slightly underestimate the yield.
The study found that the calibration and validation of the
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AMIRI ET AL. 9

T A B L E 5 Evaluation (calibration and validation) results of CERES-Maize and AquaCrop model simulations of grain yield (t ha⁻1), crop
evapotranspiration (ETc, mm) and crop water productivity (CWP, kg m⁻3) for the 2011–2014 growing seasons.

Variable Model N Xobs Xsim RMSE RMSEn R2 IOA

Model calibration (2011–2012) Grain yield CERES-Maize 27 10.6 10.5 0.6 5 0.91 0.97
AquaCrop 27 10.6 10.2 0.8 8 0.83 0.96
ETc CERES-Maize 27 484 482 43 9 0.43 0.85
AquaCrop 27 484 533 89 17 0.53 0.55
CWP CERES-Maize 27 2.3 2.3 0.1 6 0.70 0.84
AquaCrop 27 2.3 2.0 0.2 7 0.65 0.69
Model validation (2013–2014) Grain yield CERES-Maize 30 10.6 10.5 0.6 10 0.91 0.97
AquaCrop 30 8.7 9.0 1.0 12 0.94 0.98
ETc CERES-Maize 30 8.7 8.8 0.9 10 0.94 0.96
AquaCrop 30 457 469 38 8 0.75 0.86
CWP CERES-Maize 30 457 475 34 8 0.66 0.71
AquaCrop 30 1.9 1.9 0.3 17 0.67 0.67
2
Abbreviations: IOA, index of agreement; N, number of measured/simulated data; R , adjusted linear correlation coefficient between simulated and measured
values; RMSE, absolute root mean squared error; RMSEn (%), normalized root mean squared error; Xobs, mean of measured values; Xsim, mean of simulated
values.

TABLE 6 Observed and simulated grain yield (t ha⁻1) of all treatments for the growing seasons of 2011–2014.

Calibration (2011–2012) Validation (2013–2014)

AquaCrop CERES-Maize AquaCrop CERES-Maize

Grain yield Grain yield
Irrig. Trt Nitrogen Trt Obs. Sim. Pe (%) Sim. Pe (%) Obs. Sim. Pe (%) Sim. Pe (%)
Rainfed 0 8.3 7.0
15 8.9 7 5.6 6.1 10 6.5 16
84 10.2 8.5
17 9.3 0 7.2 8.0 10 8.0 10
140 11.3 9.4
17 10.1
5 8.6 9.0 4 8.9 4
196 11.4 10.3
10 10.7
4 9.2 9.1
2 9.9 8
252 11.7 10.5
10 11.0
4 9.6 9.1
5 10.5 9
75% FIT 0 8.2 8.1
2 8.8 8 5.3 6.1 15 6.2 17
84 9.4 10.1 7 9.9 13 7.1 8.2 16 7.6 7
140 12.2 11.8
3 11.4 1 9.6 9.7 2 8.8
8
196 13.1 13.5 3 12.6
1 10.6 11.2 6 9.9
7
252 13.2 13.7 4 13.1 2 11.5 11.6 1 10.9
6
FIT 0 8.1 8.2 1 8.9 9 5.8 6.1 5 6.6 13
84 10.5 10.4
2 10.0 10 8.1 8.3 2 8.0
2
140 12.5 12.2
2 11.4 0 9.8 9.9 1 9.2
6
196 13.8 14.0 2 12.6
3 11.4 11.4 0 10.4
8
252 14.4 14.2
2 13.3
2 11.6 11.9 3 11.4
1

Abbreviations: FIT, full irrigation treatment; Pe, per cent model error.

CERES-Maize model from 2011–2012 and 2013–2014,
respectively, were consistent, and the model showed
strong correlations between simulated and observed
grain yield. Therefore, the data indicated that the models
can accurately simulate grain yield for different irrigation
and N methods for maize. The study supports previous
evidence about the CERES-Maize model evaluation for
maize. Sandhu and Irmak (2019a, 2019b) observed that
the AquaCrop model performed well during calibration
and validation for irrigated treatments but performed
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 AMIRI ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 Simulated and measured grain yield (t ha⁻1) for rainfed and irrigated treatments under different nitrogen (N) fertilizer
treatments for the model calibration. FIT, full irrigation treatment.

F I G U R E 2 Simulated and measured evapotranspiration (ETc, mm) for rainfed and irrigated treatments under different nitrogen
(N) treatments for the model calibration. FIT, full irrigation treatment.

F I G U R E 3 Simulated and measured water productivity (WP) for rainfed and irrigated treatments under different nitrogen
(N) treatments for the model calibration. FIT, full irrigation treatment.

AMIRI ET AL.
F I G U R E 4 Simulated and measured grain yield (t ha⁻1) for rainfed and irrigated treatments under different nitrogen (N) fertilizer
treatments for the model validation. FIT, full irrigation treatment.
poorly for rainfed treatments. In their investigation of
maize output in Canada, Liu et al. (2011) used the
CERES-Maize model to evaluate changes in maize yield
and N dynamics. The model produced estimates of yearly
maize yields that were poorly correlated with the mea-
sured data, but the general agreement was as strong as
what other researchers have observed. Near-surface soil
mineral N and cumulative soil nitrate loss in the CC-F
treatment were relatively well approximated by the
model, with RMSEn values of 62 and 29%, respectively.
In contrast, the model consistently overestimated the soil
nitrate loss when applied to the CC-NF treatment (the
treatments selected for this study included continuous
maize with fertilization (CC-F) and continuous maize
without fertilization (CC-NF) treatments). These findings
could be used to better understand the long-term impacts
of fertilizer management strategies on maize output and
soil characteristics. Malik et al. (2019) evaluated the
impact of optimal management practices on irrigation
water requirements and N losses by leaching using sev-
eral scenarios. They calibrated and validated the CERES-
Maize model for maize under various N availability
levels. Among all plots, the model simulated grain yield
reasonably well, with an RMSE lower than 708 kg ha⁻1
and a high Willmott Agreement Index. The prediction
of residual nitrate in soil was acceptable. As a result of
well-managed irrigation, nitrate leaching would be
reduced by 97%, and the total quantity of seasonal irri-
gation water would be reduced by 31%, without notice-
ably lowering grain output. Greaves and Wang (2016)
studied the effectiveness of the AquaCrop model in
reproducing CC, biomass, yield, ETc and CWP in a
tropical and deficit irrigation setting. They recom-
mended AquaCrop as a reliable tool for assessing the
efficiency of suggested irrigation management options
for maize, although caution should be exercised when
analysing the results under high-stress conditions. In
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
particular, during the senescence stage, Heng et al. (2009)
and Katerji et al. (2013) suggested that the AquaCrop
algorithm(s) are less acceptable for modelling the length,
timing and intensity of water stress. Our comparative
analysis of the models under diverse treatment conditions
has provided intriguing insights. While both models have
demonstrated their aptitude for simulating grain yield,
disparities in accuracy have emerged. During the cali-
bration phase, the CERES-Maize model exhibited
reduced RMSEn values, signifying its superiority in the
context of these specific experimental conditions. Never-
theless, during the validation phase, both models mani-
fested analogous errors, with AquaCrop marginally
underestimating yield. This study corroborates anteced-
ent research, affirming the prowess of the CERES-Maize
model in maize yield estimation and accentuating the
precision of AquaCrop under select scenarios. Signifi-
cantly, our findings advocate that augmented N levels
have culminated in heightened precision and the atten-
uation of performance errors in both models when sim-
ulating grain yield. The models have demonstrated
proficiency in simulating grain yield under varying irri-
gation and N management modalities.
3.3 | Crop ETc
Overall, modelling irrigated systems with the CERES-
Maize model showed better performance than with
rainfed systems, indicating that the model needs further
improvements in simulating water-limiting systems. This
was also reported by Basso et al. (2016) and Menefee
et al. (2021). In the analysis, it is essential to consider the
intricacies of crop ETc simulation, particularly during
water-deficit scenarios. The AquaCrop model generally
performed better than CERES-Maize in simulating irri-
gated conditions. During calibration, CERES-Maize had
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 AMIRI ET AL.

an RMSE of 43 mm for simulated ETc, while during vali-
dation it had an RMSE of 34 mm. The results for RMSEn,
R2 and IOA were 9%, 0.43 and 0.85, respectively. The vali-
dation statistics for the same variables were 8%, 0.66 and
0.71, respectively (Table 5). During calibration, the Aqua-
Crop simulations had higher RMSE (89 mm) and RMSEn
(17%) values than CERES-Maize, while during validation,
R2 and IOA were 0.53 and 0.55, respectively (Table 5).
During AquaCrop validation for ETc, RMSE, RMSEn, R2
and IOA were 38 mm, 8%, 0.75 and 0.86, respectively
(Table 5). In calibration, CERES-Maize simulated ETc
ranged from 436 mm for rainfed with no N treatment to
504 mm for FIT with 252 kg N ha⁻1, while AquaCrop-
simulated ETc ranged from 477 mm for rainfed with no
N fertilizer to 561 mm in FIT with 84 and 140 kg N ha⁻1
(Table 7). The CERES-Maize model error (Pe) for ETc
ranged from
6% (FIT with 196 kg N ha⁻1) to 8% (rainfed
with 140 kg N ha⁻1). In the AquaCrop model, the model
error ranged from 4% (FIT with 252 kg N ha⁻1) to 23%
(75% FIT with 0 N) (Table 7). During AquaCrop valida-
tion, the measured ETc ranged from 399 mm for rainfed
with no N fertilizer treatment to 497 mm for FIT and 75%
FIT with 196 kg N ha⁻1 in 2013 and 2014. The CERES-
Maize model-simulated ETc values ranged from 445 mm
for rainfed with no N treatment to 491 mm for FIT with
252 kg N ha⁻1, and ETc varied from 430 mm for rainfed
(252 kg N ha⁻1) to 502 mm in FIT (196 kg N ha⁻1) in 2013
and 2014. The CERES-Maize model performance was
better than that of AquaCrop in estimating ETc for both
calibration and validation. Higher N levels produced
higher accuracy and reduced the performance error for
both models in simulating ETc, and ETc was not as accu-
rately simulated as the grain yield. The findings of this
investigation differed from the study by Paredes et al.
(2014), but they were consistent with the overall R2 of
0.81 obtained with the AquaCrop model for simulating
seasonal ETc. Adeboye et al. (2019) evaluated the perfor-
mance of AquaCrop using the regression coefficient (b),
R2, RMSE, RMSEn, Nash and Sutcliffe efficiency coeffi-
cient (EF), Willmott's IOA (d-index) and percentage bias
(PBIAS). AquaCrop simulated CC adequately for two sea-
sons (0.95 ≤ b ≤ 0.99; R2 ≥ 0.95 and RMSE ≤ 11.6%). The
model captured the variability in soil water storage well
with 0.95 ≤ b ≤ 1.01; R2 ≥ 0.74 and RMSE ≤ 10.2 mm.
The model simulated ETc with R2 = 0.66 and
RMSE = 65 mm. Dry above-ground biomass was simu-
lated by the model with an RMSE ≤ 0.25 t ha⁻1 and a
d-index ≥ 0.98. With b = 1.01, R2 = 0.99, RMSE of
0.03 t ha⁻1, d-index = 1.0 and a maximum difference
between the simulated and predicted grain yields as low
as 3%, grain yield was likewise accurately predicted. The
CWP was simulated with R2 = 0.78 and RMSE = 0.08 kg
m⁻3. They emphasized that the AquaCrop model's general
performance in replicating CC, dry above-ground

TABLE 7 Observed and simulated ET (mm) of all treatments for the growing seasons of 2011–2014.

Calibration (2011–2012) Validation (2013–2014)

AquaCrop CERES-Maize AquaCrop CERES-Maize

ETc ETc
Irrig. Trt Nitrogen Trt Obs. Sim. Pe (%) Sim. Pe (%) Obs. Sim. Pe (%) Sim. Pe (%)
Rainfed 0 411 477 16 436 6 399 431 8 445 12
84 441 492 11 461 4 407 452 11 462 14
140 430 491 14 462 8 433 452 4 466 8
196 439 493 12 462 5 424 438 3 468 10
252 462 494 7 463 0 433 430
1 468 8
75% FIT 0 454 560 23 467 3 440 450 2 462 5
84 486 552 14 494 2 457 482 5 479 5
140 496 552 11 496 0 474 493 4 485 2
196 517 547 6 498
4 497 496 0 487
2
252 503 548 9 499
1 486 493 2 489 1
FIT 0 472 577 22 471 0 462 450
3 468 1
84 517 561 9 496
4 471 484 3 484 3
140 523 561 7 498
5 493 499 1 487
1
196 531 555 5 499
6 497 502 1 490
1
252 533 556 4 504
5 491 501 2 491 0

Abbreviations: ETc, evapotranspiration; FIT, full irrigation treatment; Pe, per cent model error.
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AMIRI ET AL. 13

biomass and grain yield is sufficient but performs poorly
when modelling ETc and CWP for rainfed conditions.
The results of the models' performance in irrigated sys-
tems revealed that, predominantly during the calibration
phase, CERES-Maize exhibited superior proficiency com-
pared to AquaCrop. However, during the validation
phase, AquaCrop showed commendable performance,
elucidating its capacity to effectively emulate irrigated
systems. These results are in accordance with previous
research endeavours. It is worth noting that the fidelity of
ETc simulations did not attain the same level of precision
as grain yield. Both models have a margin for improve-
ment in the simulation of ETc, as discerned from the dis-
parities between simulated and observed values.
3.4 | CWP
CWP is an effective indicator of the response of crop pro-
duction systems to water, nutrients and other manage-
ment practices. In terms of calibration and validation for
CWP assessment, the CERES-Maize model had lower
RMSE and RMSEn than AquaCrop. During the calibra-
tion, the CERES-Maize model had a higher R2 (0.70) than
AquaCrop (0.65) (Table 5). For calibration and validation,
the CERES-Maize model generated IOA values of 0.84
and 0.83, respectively. The AquaCrop model calibration
had an IOA value of 0.69 and a validation IOA value of
0.67. During CERES-Maize model calibration, the mea-
sured WP varied from 1.72 kg m⁻3 for FIT (0 N) to 2.6 kg
m⁻3 for rainfed (196 kg N ha⁻1) in 2011 and 2012, while
the simulated WP varied from 1.9 kg m⁻3 for FIT and 75%
FIT (0 N) to 2.7 kg m⁻3 for FIT (252 kg N ha⁻1), which
closely matched the measured data. With AquaCrop, the
WP varied from 1.4 kg m⁻3 for FIT (0 N) to 2.4 kg m⁻3 in
FIT (252 kg N ha⁻1) (Table 8), which also agreed well
with the measured data. The model error for water pro-
ductivity varied from
11% (in rainfed with 140 kg N
ha⁻1) to 15% in FIT (84 kg N ha⁻1) with the CERES-Maize
model, while it varied from
26% (in rainfed with 0 N) to
close to zero in FIT (84 kg N ha⁻1) (Table 8) with Aqua-
Crop. During validation, the measured water productivity
varied from 0.9 kg m⁻3 for 75% FIT (0 N) to 2.0 kg m⁻3 for
75% FIT (252 kg N ha⁻1) in 2013 and 2014, while the sim-
ulated water productivity values varied from 1.2 kg m⁻3
for 75% FIT (0 N) to 2.3 kg m⁻3 for 75% FIT (252 kg N
ha⁻1) in the CERES-Maize model. The AquaCrop model
had simulated water productivity values that varied from
1.3 kg m⁻3 for 75% FIT and FIT (0 N) to 2.2 kg m⁻3 in FIT
(252 kg N ha⁻1) in 2013 and 2014 (Table 8). Compared
with the CERES-Maize model, the AquaCrop model had
higher simulated water productivity values (Figures 3–6).
The lowest observed and simulated values of water pro-
ductivity were obtained with the 0 N treatment, while the

TABLE 8 Observed and simulated water productivity (CWP, kg m⁻3) of all treatments for the growing seasons of 2011–2014.

Calibration (2011–2012) Validation (2013–2014)

AquaCrop CERES-Maize AquaCrop CERES-Maize

CWP CWP
Irrig. Trt Nitrogen Trt Obs. Sim. Pe (%) Sim. Pe (%) Obs. Sim. Pe (%) Sim. Pe (%)
Rainfed 0 2.0 1.5
26 2.0 1 1.2 1.4 17 1.4 17
84 2.1 1.7
18 2.0
4 1.3 1.7 35 1.7 35
140 2.5 1.9
22 2.2
11 1.3 1.9 41 1.9 41
196 2.6 2.1
18 2.3
9 1.6 1.8 16 2.1 15
252 2.5 2.2
12 2.4
4 1.7 1.7 2 2.2 2
75% FIT 0 1.8 1.4
20 1.9 5 0.9 1.3 45 1.2 44
84 1.8 1.8
3 2.0 12 1.1 1.6 45 1.5 45
140 2.3 2.0
11 2.3 1 1.5 1.9 27 2.0 27
196 2.5 2.3
6 2.5 3 1.6 2.1 31 2.1 31
252 2.6 2.4
6 2.6 3 2.0 2.2 10 2.3 10
FIT 0 1.7 1.4
17 1.9 9 1.0 1.3 36 1.2 37
84 1.8 1.8 0 2.0 15 1.4 1.6 21 1.7 20
140 2.2 2.1
7 2.3 5 1.5 1.9 28 2.0 27
196 2.5 2.3
5 2.5 3 1.9 2.2 17 2.3 16
252 2.5 2.4
5 2.7 4 1.9 2.2 17 1.9 17

Abbreviations: CWP, crop water productivity; FIT, full irrigation treatment; Pe, per cent model error.
 15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 AMIRI ET AL.

F I G U R E 5 Simulated and measured evapotranspiration (ETc, mm) for rainfed and irrigated treatments under different nitrogen
(N) treatments for the model validation. FIT, full irrigation treatment.

F I G U R E 6 Simulated and measured water productivity (WP, kg m⁻3) for rainfed and irrigated treatments under different nitrogen
(N) treatments for the model calibration. FIT, full irrigation treatment.

highest were obtained with higher N levels. Under differ-
ent irrigation and N levels, Ji et al. (2014) evaluated the
CERES-Maize model for wheat crops in the Guanzhong
Plain of north-west China and reported RMSEn values
less than 21%, indicating reasonable deviations between
simulated and observed CWP. An RMSEn value below
20% was achieved in this current study, which allowed
for a high level of accuracy in the simulation of water
productivity. As a result of strong CWP simulations, the
CERES-Maize model has shown adequate efficiency and
robustness in simulations across all treatments. Hodges
et al. (1987) investigated the ability of the CERES-Maize
model to estimate annual fluctuations in maize produc-
tion for the US Cornbelt and ran the model for 51 weather
stations in the 14 states, which account for 85% of US
maize production at the time of their study. The model
was calibrated for the region by deriving varietal coeffi-
cients for each station based on minimal growth stage
data and yields for the 1982 season. For the calibration
year, the model production estimates were 92, 97, 98 and
101% for 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985, respectively, of the
official US government estimates. They suggested that
the model can successfully be used for large area yield
and production estimation in the United States with min-
imal regional calibration. The findings of the current
study suggest the adequacy and accuracy of both models
in simulating maize CWP. The results revealed that the
CERES-Maize model, when scrutinized through the lens
of RMSE and RMSEn metrics, outperformed AquaCrop,
accentuating its pre-eminence in modelling CWP. Never-
theless, AquaCrop has delivered commendable perfor-
mance, especially in the validation phase, underscoring
its reliability in CWP assessment. The models have eluci-
dated that across varied irrigation and N levels, CWP
values have undergone pronounced variations. The inter-
play between N levels and CWP values has been brought
to the forefront, with elevated N levels translating to an
augmentation in CWP. Different scenarios were used to

AMIRI ET AL.
compare the models in this study, including Scenario A:
optimal irrigation and optimal N consumption, Scenario
B: low irrigation and optimal N consumption, Scenario
C: optimal irrigation and low N consumption and Sce-
nario D: low irrigation and low N consumption. In
Scenario A, characterized by optimal levels of irrigation
and N input, both models consistently demonstrated
robust performance across all variables. These findings
suggest that the models exhibit notable effectiveness
when applied in agricultural settings characterized by
high input levels. Scenario B, characterized by limited
irrigation but optimal N inputs, provided insights into
the models' capacity to navigate scenarios marked by
nutrient-rich yet water-scarce conditions. Notably, the
CERES-Maize model displayed heightened sensitivity to
water stress under such conditions, while the AquaCrop
model exhibited a more balanced response. Scenario C,
which emphasized sufficient irrigation coupled with
restricted N inputs, underscored the pivotal role of nutri-
ent management. The performance of the AquaCrop
model was discernibly affected by the availability of N,
whereas the CERES-Maize model demonstrated resil-
ience to variations in N inputs. In Scenario D, which is
representative of scenarios characterized by low levels of
irrigation and N inputs, both models encountered notable
challenges. In this context, AquaCrop exhibited a height-
ened sensitivity to limitations in both water and nutrient
availability, while the CERES-Maize model maintained a
moderate level of performance.
4 | C ON C L U S I ON
This study sought to comprehensively evaluate maize
growth and productivity variables by rigorously using the
CERES-Maize and AquaCrop models. The evaluation
was conducted across a spectrum of scenarios encom-
passing various irrigation and N application rates. Within
the scope of this investigation, the models were meticu-
lously juxtaposed against field-observed data. The results
showed that both the CERES-Maize and AquaCrop
models effectively demonstrated their ability to faithfully
replicate critical phenological milestones, most notably
the timing of flowering and maturity. The commendable
congruence between their simulations and real-world
observations attests to the efficacy of the models in
encapsulating the pivotal phases of maize growth. This
phase witnessed the model's most compelling perfor-
mances. While both models have shown potential, Aqua-
Crop's consistency in offering higher levels of accuracy in
most of the simulated scenarios is particularly notewor-
thy. In the CWP assessment, the CERES-Maize model
offered lower RMSE and RMSEn values than the
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
AquaCrop model. However, AquaCrop has assumed the
mantle of supremacy in the domain of CWP. This mantle
is particularly evident in terms of R2 and IOA values,
which underscore its unparalleled precision in CWP sim-
ulations. The critical selection between CERES-Maize
and AquaCrop hinges upon the exacting demands of a
given study. CERES-Maize's exceptional calibration per-
formance renders it an attractive choice under certain cir-
cumstances. Nevertheless, AquaCrop's all-encompassing
superiority in precision, particularly in the context of ETc
and CWP, renders it a compelling choice for specialized
applications. The performance of both models varied
depending on the specific treatment combinations and
time periods. Both models performed well under limited
and full irrigation conditions. However, their accuracy
needs to be improved for rainfed conditions.
A C KN O WL ED G EME N T S
The work presented in this paper is a part of a long-term
research that investigates the fundamentals of coupled
irrigation water and nitrogen management strategies on
grain yield, water productivity, evapotranspiration, evap-
oration and transpiration dynamics, yield production
functions, soil-water dynamics and yield response factors,
and other productivity variables and environmental rela-
tionships for different cropping systems in the Irmak
Research Laboratory’s advance irrigation engineering,
evapotranspiration, plant physiology and climate science
research facilities. The authors thank Daran Rudnick
(former MS and Ph.D. student of Professor Suat Irmak)
and Matthew Drudik (former MS student and Research
Technologist of Professor Suat Irmak) for their work and
contributions in field research and data collection. The
trade names or commercial products are provided solely
for the information of the reader and do not constitute a
recommendation for use by the authors or their
institutions.
DA TA AVAI LA BI LI TY S T ATE ME NT
The corresponding author, Professor Suat Irmak, can pro-
vide data used in this study with a reasonable request.
ORCID
Suat Irmak https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0583-2861
RE FER EN CES
Adeboye, O.B., Schultz, B., Adekalu, K.O. & Prasad, K. (2019) Per-
formance evaluation of AquaCrop in simulating soil water stor-
age, yield, and water productivity of rainfed soybeans (Glycine
max L. merr) in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Agricultural Water Manage-
ment, 213, 1130–1146. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2018.11.006
Amiri, E. & Abedinpour, M. (2020) Simulating maize yield response
to depletion of available soil water and nitrogen management

16
under drip irrigation with the FAO AquaCrop model. Russian
Agricultural Sciences, 46(6), 602–608. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.3103/S1068367420060038
Anothai, J., Soler, C.M.T., Green, A., Trout, T.J. & Hoogenboom, G.
(2013) Evaluation of two evapotranspiration approaches simu-
lated with the CSM–CERES–Maize model under different irri-
gation strategies and the impact on maize growth, development
and soil moisture content for semi-arid conditions. Agricultural
and Forest Meteorology, 176, 64–76. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.03.001
Babel, M.S., Deb, P. & Soni, P. (2019) Performance evaluation of
AquaCrop and DSSAT-CERES for maize under different irriga-
tion and manure application rates in the Himalayan region of
India. Agricultural Research, 8(2), 207–217. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-018-0366-y
Basso, B., Liu, L. & Ritchie, J.T. (2016) A comprehensive review of
the CERES-wheat, -maize and -rice models' performances.
Advances in Agronomy, 136, 27–132. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2015.11.004
Boogaard, H. L., van Diepen, C. A., Rötter, R. P., Cabrera, J. M.
C. A., & van Laar, H. H. (1998). User's guide for the WOFOST
7.1 crop growth simulation model and WOFOST Control Cen-
ter 1.5. Tech. Doc. 52. DLO-Win and Staring Centre, Wagenin-
gen, the Netherlands.
Boote, K.J., Jones, J.W. & Pickering, N.B. (1996) Potential uses and
limitations of crop models. Agronomy Journal, 88(5), 704–716.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1996.0002196
2008800050005x
Bryant, K.J., Benson, V.W., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R. &
Lacewell, R.D. (1992) Simulating corn yield response to irriga-
tion timings: validation of the EPIC model. Journal of Produc-
tion Agriculture, 5(2), 237–242. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.2134/jpa1992.0237
Cavero, J., Farre, I., Debaeke, P. & Faci, J.M. (2000) Simulation of
maize yield under water stress with the EPICphase and CROP-
WAT models. Agronomy Journal, 92(4), 679–690. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.924679x
Djaman, K. & Irmak, S. (2012) Soil water extraction patterns and
crop, irrigation, and evapotranspiration water use efficiency of
maize under full and limited irrigation and rainfed settings.
Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1223–1238. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42262
Fathi, A., Barari Tari, D., Fallah Amoli, H. & Niknejad, Y. (2020)
Study of energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions in corn production systems: influence of different tillage
systems and use of fertilizer. Communications in Soil Science
and Plant Analysis, 51(6), 769–778. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1729373
Fernandez, J.E., Moreno, F., Murillo, J.M., Cayuela, J.A.,
Fernandez-Boy, E. & Cabrera, F. (1996) Water use and yield of
maize with two levels of nitrogen fertilization in SW Spain.
Agricultural Water Management, 29(2), 215–233. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3774(95)01192-7
Greaves, G.E. & Wang, Y.M. (2016) Assessment of FAO AquaCrop
model for simulating maize growth and productivity under def-
icit irrigation in a tropical environment. Water, 8(12), 557.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/w8120557
He, J., Yang, K., Tang, W., Lu, H., Qin, J., Chen, Y. et al. (2020) The
first high-resolution meteorological forcing dataset for land pro-
cess studies over China. Scientific Data, 7(1), 25. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0369-y
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
AMIRI ET AL.
Heng, L.K., Hsiao, T., Evett, S., Howell, T. & Steduto, P. (2009) Vali-
dating the FAO AquaCrop model for irrigated and water defi-
cient field maize. Agronomy Journal, 101(3), 488–498. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0029xs
Hodges, T., Botner, D., Sakamoto, C. & Haug, J.H. (1987) Using the
CERES-Maize model to estimate production for the U.S. Cornbelt.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 40(4), 293–303. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(87)90043-8
Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Shelia, V.,
Wilkens, P.W., Singh, U. et al. (2019) The DSSAT crop model-
ing ecosystem. In: Advances in crop modelling for a sustainable
agriculture. Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science.
Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, pp. 173–
216 https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2019.0061.10
Hsiao, T.C., Heng, L., Steduto, P., Rojas-Lara, B., Raes, D. &
Fereres, E. (2009) AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to simulate
yield response to water: III. Parameterization and testing for
maize. Agronomy Journal, 101(3), 448–459. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0218s
Irmak, S. (2010) Nebraska Water and Energy Flux Measurement,
Modeling, and Research Network (NEBFLUX). Transactions of
the ASABE, 53(4), 1097–1115. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.13031/2013.32600
Irmak, S. (2015a) Interannual variation in long-term center pivot–
irrigated maize evapotranspiration and various water produc-
tivity response indices. I: grain yield, actual and basal evapo-
transpiration, irrigation-yield production functions,
evapotranspiration-yield production functions, and yield
response factors. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineer-
ing, 141(5), 04014068. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1061/(
asce)ir.1943-4774.0000825
Irmak, S. (2015b) Inter-annual variation in long-term center pivot–
irrigated maize evapotranspiration and various water produc-
tivity response indices. II: irrigation water use efficiency, crop
WUE, evapotranspiration WUE, irrigation-evapotranspiration
use efficiency, and precipitation use efficiency. Journal of Irri-
gation and Drainage Engineering, 141(5), 1–11. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ir.1943-4774.0000826
Irmak, S., Mohammed, A.T. & Kukal, M.S. (2022) Maize response
to coupled irrigation and nitrogen fertilization under center
pivot, subsurface drip and surface (furrow) irrigation: growth,
development and productivity. Agricultural Water Manage-
ment, 263(2022), 107457. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agwat.2022.107457
Jamieson, P.D., Porter, J.R. & Wilson, D.R. (1991) A test of the com-
puter simulation model ARCWHEAT1 on wheat crops grown
in New Zealand. Field Crops Research, 27(4), 337–350. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(91)90040-3
Ji, J., Cai, H., He, J. & Wang, H. (2014) Performance evaluation of
CERES-Wheat model in Guanzhong Plain of Northwest China.
Agricultural Water Management, 144, 1–10. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.04.016
Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J.,
Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.A. et al. (2003) The DSSAT cropping
system model. European Journal of Agronomy, 18(3–4), 235–
265. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1161-0301(02)
00107-7
Kanda, E.K., Mabhaudhi, T. & Senzanje, A. (2018) Coupling hydro-
logical and crop models for improved agricultural water
management—a review. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Sci-
ence, 24(3), 380–390.

AMIRI ET AL.
Katerji, N., Campi, P. & Mastrorilli, M. (2013) Productivity, evapo-
transpiration, and water use efficiency of corn and tomato
crops simulated by AquaCrop under contrasting water stress
conditions in the Mediterranean region. Agricultural Water
Management, 130, 14–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agwat.2013.08.005
Kimball, B.A., Boote, K.J., Hatfield, J.L., Ahuja, L.R., Stockle, C.,
Archontoulis, S. et al. (2019) Simulation of maize evapotranspi-
ration: an inter-comparison among 29 maize models. Agricul-
tural and Forest Meteorology, 271, 264–284. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037
Liu, H.L., Yang, J.Y., Drury, C.F., Reynolds, W.D., Tan, C.S.,
Bai, Y.L. et al. (2011) Using the DSSAT-CERES-Maize model to
simulate crop yield and nitrogen cycling in fields under long-
term continuous maize production. Nutrient Cycling in Agroeco-
systems, 89(3), 313–328. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10705-010-9396-y
Louise, B.B. & James, B.P. (1996) America's garden book. New York:
Macmillan USA, p. 768.
Malik, W., Isla, R. & Dechmi, F. (2019) DSSAT-CERES-maize
modelling to improve irrigation and nitrogen management
practices under Mediterranean conditions. Agricultural Water
Management, 213, 298–308. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agwat.2018.10.022
Menefee, D., Rajan, N., Cui, S., Bagavathiannan, M., Schnell, R. &
West, J. (2021) Simulation of dryland maize growth and evapo-
transpiration using DSSAT-CERES-Maize model. Agronomy
Journal, 113(2), 1317–1332. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1002/agj2.20524
Molden D. 1997. Accounting for water use and productivity. System-
wide initiative on water management (SWIM). Rep. 1. Interna-
tional Irrigation Management Institute, Sri Lanka. p. 1–16.
Monteith, J.L. (1996) The quest for balance in crop modeling.
Agronomy Journal, 88(5), 695–697. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800050003x
Otegui, M.E., Andrade, F.H. & Suero, E.E. (1995) Growth, water
use, and kernel abortion of maize subjected to drought at silk-
ing. Field Crops Research, 40(2), 87–94. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(94)00093-R
Paredes, P., Rodrigues, G.C., Alves, I. & Pereira, L.S. (2014) Parti-
tioning evapotranspiration, yield prediction and economic
returns of maize under various irrigation management strate-
gies. Agricultural Water Management, 135, 27–39. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.12.010
Payero, J.O., Tarkalson, D.D., Irmak, S., Davison, D. & Petersen, J.L.
(2009) Effect of timing of a deficit-irrigation allocation on corn
evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency and dry mass.
Agricultural Water Management, 96(10), 1387–1397. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.022
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. Agronomy Jour-
nal, 101(3), 438–447. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2134/
agronj2008.0140s
Rudnick, D. & Irmak, S. (2014) Impact of nitrogen fertilizer on maize
evapotranspiration crop coefficients under fully-irrigated, limited
irrigation, and rainfed settings. Journal of Irrigation and
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2917, Wiley Online Library on [25/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
17
Drainage Engineering, 140(12), 04014039. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000778
Rudnick, D., Irmak, S., Ferguson, R., Shaver, T., Djaman, K.,
Slater, G. et al. (2016) Economic return vs crop water productiv-
ity of maize for various nitrogen rates under full irrigation, lim-
ited irrigation, and rainfed settings in south central Nebraska.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 142(6), 1-12.
04016017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.
1943-4774.0001023
Sandhu, R. & Irmak, S. (2019a) Performance of AquaCrop model in
simulating maize growth, yield, and evapotranspiration under
rainfed, limited and full irrigation. Agricultural Water Manage-
ment, 223, 105687. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2019.105687
Sandhu, R. & Irmak, S. (2019b) Assessment of AquaCrop model in
simulating maize canopy cover, soil-water, evapotranspiration,
yield and water productivity for different planting dates and
densities under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Agricultural
Water Management, 224, 105753. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105753
Sinclair, T.R. & Muchow, R.C. (2001) System analysis of plant traits
to increase grain yield on limited water supplies. Agronomy
Journal, 93(2), 263–270. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
2134/agronj2001.932263x
Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Raes, D. & Fereres, E. (2009) AquaCrop-the
FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts
and underlying principles. Agronomy Journal, 101(3), 426–437.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0139s
Stöckle, C.O., Donatelli, M. & Nelson, R. (2003) CropSyst, a crop-
ping systems simulation model. European Journal of Agronomy,
18(3–4), 289–307. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1161-0301(02)00109-0
Undie, U.L., Uwah, D.F. & Attoe, E.E. (2012) Effect of intercropping
and crop arrangement on yield and productivity of late season
maize/soybean mixtures in the humid environment of south
southern Nigeria. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(4), 37–
50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v4n4p37
USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service (NRCS). (1985)
“Hydrology.” Section 4, National engineering handbook, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Washington, DC.
Zoghdan, M.G. (2021) Evaluation of maize water productivity by
FAO-AquaCrop model using integration of mulching, nitrogen
fertilization and irrigation in saline and non-saline soils.
Menoufia Journal of Soil Science, 6(7), 197–211. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.21608/mjss.2021.192510
How to cite this article: Amiri, E., Irmak, S. &
Tari, D.B. (2024) Comparison of the AquaCrop and
CERES-Maize models for simulating maize
phenology, grain yield, evapotranspiration and
water productivity under different irrigation and
nitrogen levels. Irrigation and Drainage, 1–17.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2917