2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcm.2010.11.034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application of the SWAP model to simulate the field water cycle under deficit irrigation in Beijing, China

Abstract: a b s t r a c tThe evaluation of the field water cycle under deficit irrigation plays an important role in studying mechanism of field water dynamics, optimization of agricultural water management strategies, and assessment of regional water resources. In this study, the agro-hydrological Soil-Water-Atmosphere-Plant (SWAP) model was used to evaluate the field water cycle for a winter wheat-summer corn double cropping system in Beijing, China under deficit irrigation. A carefully designed field experiment was c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
26
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
26
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Eitzinger et al (2004) found that the SWAP model (version 2.0.7d) insignificantly underestimated the measured soil water content on plots with spring barley, whereas the RMSE values ranged from 1.7 to 3.5% depending on soil type. Ma et al (2011) reported that there were strong correlations (R 2 = 0.77-0.86) between the measured and predicted soil water content after the SWAP model and the average RMSE values of simulated soil water content varied from 2.7 to 4.3% at the depth of 0-20 cm. However, the results of Jiang et al (2011) showed that the SWAP model could overestimate the soil water content at the depth of 15 cm and predict it efficiently at the depths of 35, 65, and 95 cm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Eitzinger et al (2004) found that the SWAP model (version 2.0.7d) insignificantly underestimated the measured soil water content on plots with spring barley, whereas the RMSE values ranged from 1.7 to 3.5% depending on soil type. Ma et al (2011) reported that there were strong correlations (R 2 = 0.77-0.86) between the measured and predicted soil water content after the SWAP model and the average RMSE values of simulated soil water content varied from 2.7 to 4.3% at the depth of 0-20 cm. However, the results of Jiang et al (2011) showed that the SWAP model could overestimate the soil water content at the depth of 15 cm and predict it efficiently at the depths of 35, 65, and 95 cm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Table 2). The detailed measurements and results at the LC, TZ and YC sites were demonstrated by Zhang et al (2004), Ma et al (2011) andFang et al (2007), respectively. The SWAP model was setup at the three sites, which was described in detail in the following.…”
Section: Model Setup At the Three Representative Sitesmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…The vegetation parameters including the LAI and CH at different crop development stages, length of crop cycle, and maximum rooting depth were measured at each site Ma et al, 2011;Fang et al, 2007). The initial crop parameters including the extinction coefficient for diffuse and direct visible light, minimum canopy resistance, limiting pressure heads, and salinity were set to the values recommended by van Dam et al (1997).…”
Section: Model Setup At the Three Representative Sitesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The Soil, Water, Atmosphere and Plant (SWAP) model has been intensively validated during the past 2 decades (van Dam et al, 1997;Gusev and Nasonova, 2003;Kroes et al, 2000;Gusev et al, 2011;Ma et al, 2011). Different versions of SWAP are validated against various observed hydrothermal characteristics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%