Captura de recursos y

modelos de simulacin

(4) introduccin a cropsyst

CSIRO LAND and WATER

 Bibliografa
Stckle et al. 1994

Stckle et al. 2003

CSIRO LAND and WATER

 CropSyst
Nivel de organizacin: cultivo
Escala temporal: diaria

Controles de crecimiento principales:

radiacin solar y temperatura
Disponibilidad de agua
Disponibilidad de nitrgeno
 Procesos simulados
fenologa
produccin de biomasa
particin de biomasa
balance de agua (2 modelos)
balance de nitrgeno
respuesta a CO2

erosin
escurrimiento
salinidad de agua y suelo
congelamiento de suelo

Manejo - siembra, fertilizacin, labranza, residuos,

riego, corte (pasturas)
 Procesos no simulados
Componentes de rendimiento
Calidad de grano
Nutrientes (excepto N)
Pestes,enfermedades,malezas
Efectos biticos de rotaciones
Otros estreses (granizo, alcalinidad)
Intersiembra
Erosin elica
 Inputs y parmetros
64 parmetros para c/cultivo o variedad

Parmetros de suelo
Mnimo: textura por horizonte
Numero de curva (escurrimiento)

4 Parmetros relacionados con N transf.

Inputs Climticos: Tmax, Tmin, Prec, Radsol,
HRmax, HRmin DEWPT, Wind
 Condiciones iniciales
Para cada estrato de suelo:
Contenido hdrico
Contenido de N (nitrato y amonio)
Salinidad

Salinidad de napa
Residuos
Concentracin de CO2
 Outputs
datos de cultivo diarios:
fenologa, biomasa, rea foliar
balance de agua (ETo, Eo, To, ET)
balance de N

Harvest Annual resmenes

a cosecha y anuales
Formatos: XLS, TXT, HTML, UED
Desarrollo del cultivo
Desarrollo es la progresin del cultivo a travs
de estadios fenolgicos (emergencia,
floracin)

La simulacin de fenologa es crtica por que

1) Determina el perodo durante el cual el
cultivo accede a recursos tales como agua
y radiacin
2) Permite asociar condiciones fisiolgicas
especificas con condiciones ambientales
Desarrollo fenolgico
crecimiento de cultivo - 1

GTR = KBT x T x VPD-1

GTR = crecimiento limitado por agua (kg m-2 d-1)

KBT = coeficiente biomasa-transpiracin (kPa)
T = transpiracin (kg m-2 d-1)
VPD = dficit de presin de vapor (kPa)
crecimiento de cultivo - 2

GPAR = e fint PAR

GPAR = crecim. limitado por radiacin (kg m-2 d-1)

e = eficiencia en el uso de la radiacin (kg/MJ)
fint = fraccin de radiacin interceptada
PAR = radiacin fotosintticamente activa (MJ/m2)
intercepcin de radiacin
interceptada (fraccin)
Radiacin

Iint/Io = 1-exp(-k LAI)

intercepcin de radiacin

La estimacin de radiacin
interceptada es importante por que:

1. Determina la cantidad de PAR

disponible para producir biomasa

2. Determina la particin entre ETo y

sus componentes To y Eo
crecimiento de cultivo - 3

GPAR = e fint PAR

vs
GTR = KBT x T x VPD-1

Biomasa = mnimo (GTR ,GPAR)

crecimiento de cultivo - 4

BN = B [1 - (Npcrit - Np)/(Npcrit - Npmin)]

B = crecimiento limitado x radiacin y agua

Npcrit = concentracin de N en planta crtica
Np = concentracin de N en planta
Npmin = concentracin mnima de N en planta
crecimiento - 5

Biomass

LAI LAI = SLA Bcum / (1 + p Bcum)

Root depth RD = Rdmax f (LAI, LAImax )

SLA = rea foliar especfica

p = coeficiente de particin
Balance de nitrgeno - 1
Balance de nitrgeno - 2

Componentes del balance de N

Input Output
Fertilizacin Volatilizacin
Mineralizacin Desnitrificacin
Fijacin Inmovilizacin
Residuos Absorcin
Irrigacin Drenaje
N atmosfrico
Balance de nitrgeno - 3
Transformaciones
Transformaciones
- Mineralizacin neta (mineralizacin - inmovilizacin)
- Nitrificacin

- Desnitrificacin
Procesos microbiolgicos

Simulados asumiendo cintica irreversible de 1er orden

Balance de nitrgeno - 4
Transformaciones

Nt = N0 [ 1 - e(-K t)]

N t = cantidad transformada en intervalo t (kg / (m t))

N0 = cantidad disponible para transformacin (kg / (m t))

K = Tasa (1/t)
Balance de nitrgeno - 5
Transformaciones

K = f(Temp,SWC)
Balance de nitrgeno - 6
Volatilizacin
Importante cuando el N se aplica como
amonio sin incorporacin al suelo

Puede simularse mecanisticamente

segn gradientes de concentracin y
resistencias

Un mtodo ms simple substrae una

fraccin fija dependiendo de condiciones
Balance de nitrgeno 7

Prdida por drenaje

Relacionada al movimiento de agua en el suelo y
con las movilidades de nitrato y amonio.

Transporte de N puede simularse con mtodos de

diferencia finita y cascada.

Transporte de N en el suelo es importante para

determinar accesibilidad para el cultivo.
Balance de nitrgeno - 8

Transporte de nitrgeno

El transporte de N en el suelo se
calcula multiplicando los flujos de agua
entre estratos por la concentracin de N
en el estrato donde se inicia el flujo
Balance de nitrgeno - 9

Retencin de nitrgeno
Nitrato: se mueve con el agua (sin retencin)

Amonio: es parcialmente retenido por las arcillas

Balance de nitrgeno - 10

Absorcin de N
Balance de nitrgeno - 11
Absorcin potencial de N

Nup = Numax [Nr] / K + [Nr]

Nup = absorcin potencial por unidad de long. de raz

Numax = absorcin mxima por unidad de long de raz

Nr = concentracin de N en rizosfera
K = constante
Balance de N 12 (demanda)
Leaf nitrogen concentration (kg/kg) 0.07

0.06
maximum N concentration
0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Development stage
van Keulen, Seligman (1987)
 Balance de nitrgeno - 13

Absorcin de N =
min. (absorcin potencial, demanda)
Aplicacin
Mallee farming systems
Environment
Geology
Murray-darling basin. Tertiary marine
limestone capped by Pliocene sands
Topography
c oastal plains with trend of sandridges,
dunes
Soil solonized brown
Hill: sandy soil
Valley: sandy-clay soil
Natural vegetation
Relict: Mallee scrub ( Eucalyptus dumosa )
Climate
Type Mediterranean
carlos h diaz ambrona
Mallee farming systems

Walpeup, BMSM 76064

Mallee farming systems
Cropping land: 6 Mha (10
Mha)
Wheat-fallow rotation
Long fallow management
No till
Traditional till
Farm size: > 2 kha
Paddock size 100-300 ha
Mallee farming systems
Land uses 1.5 M Sheep
0.9 M Meat cattle

Pulses 7%
Oilseeds 1%
Other 7%
Cereals 35 %

Fallow 20 %

Pastures 30 %
Problems
Problems
Low water use
Low crop diversification
High risk of wind erosion
Consequences
Soil salinity
Soil erosion
Low productivity
Low farm income
Constrains
Soil
Weather
Market
Complexity
Objectives
There is an urgent
environmental need to
reduce the dependence on
fallows and find
alternative cropping
systems that minimise deep
drainage

Long term assessment of

different crop management
Method
Which studies do we want?
Long term analysis
Cropping system
Water balance
Farm or regional level

When using simulation models, it is important to understand

how the model represents the physical, chemical, and
biological processes involved in cropping system response to
the environment and management
Method
Crop system processes
Long term analyses
Model applications
Which model?
Method
Cropping System Simulation model

CropSyst on-line
Free Software
www.bsyse.wsu.edu/CropSyst/
Water balance
Farm or regional level
Previous work: USA, Europe,
Middle East
Method
Observed data (OConnell, 1998)

Field experiment carried out

MRS Walpeup from 1993-1997

Rotations
FW Fallow -wheat
FWP Fallow -wheat- pea
WW Wheat -wheat
MWP Mustard-
Mustard wheat- pea
Field data
Soil water content evolution,
phenology, LAI, crop coverage,
biomass, yield ...
Model performance
Steps for model applications

1. Verification
2. Calibration
sensibility analysis
3. Validation
model acceptability
model consistency
4. Application
results interpretation
CropSyst verification
Does the model run well?

1. Version 3.02.07 (16 Feb 2001)

2. Run the examples
3. Run our modified examples
4. Display all outputs
5. Some errors found in the
outputs but were not relevant
(columns position, no use routines)
6. Mass balances: water and N ok!
CropSyst calibration
Calibration can fit the
model close to 1:1
But calibration parameters
must be physiologycally
meaninfull
Abolish unrealistic
coefficient values for
parameters calibration
Calibration starts with
default parameters and it
continues with well known
parameters
CropSyst calibration
Crop parameters (64) for
Wheat, Mustard and Field
pea
Parameters for a Sandy soil
Hydraulic properties
(Permanent wilting point, field
capacity, bulk density, and saturated
hydraulic conductivity)
Also soil surface ( Universal
s oil L oss E quation) and SCS Curve
number
Nitrogen
Weather data from the MRS
Initial condition = field experiment
CropSyst calibration
Summary of some key crop parameters
Variable Units Wheat Mustard Field pea
Thermal time
Base temperature C 0 0 0
Emergence C days 130 150 150
Begin flowering C days 750 950 1100
Physiological maturity C days 1400 2000 1950
Photo-period
Day length to inhibit flowering hours 16.5 ns ns
Day length for insensitivity hours 8 ns ns
Crop morphology
Maximum expected LAI m/m 5 5 5
Specific leaf area m/kg 20 22 24
Stem/leaf partition coefficient 1-10 5 4 6
Crop growth
Above ground biomass-transpiration efficiency kPa kg/m 5.8 6 3.25
Radiation use efficiency RUE g/MJ 3 1.85 1.47
Optimum mean daily temperature for growth C 20 15 10
Extinction coefficient for solar radiation k 0-1 0.82 0.65 0.76
Harvest index
Unstressed HI 0-1 0.4 0.2 0.25
Nitrogen crop parameters
Maximum N concentration during early growth kgN/kgDM 0.050 0.055 0.060
Minimum N concentration at maturity kgN/kgDM 0.007 0.008 0.050
Maximum N concentration at maturity kgN/kgDM 0.012 0.022 0.060
Minimum N concentration of harvested material kgN/kgDM 0.030 0.030 0.030
CropSyst validation
Water balance
for long fallow compared CropSyst
vs. OLeary-Connor wheat-fallow
model
And
CropSyst vs. observed data
(OConnell, 1998)

Crop performance
Simulated individual crops:
wheat, field pea, and mustard
vs. observed data

Crops in rotation FW, WW, FWP, MWP

CropSyst validation
Water soil content (mm)
280
fallow phase
S o il w ater co n ten t 0-1m (m m )

260

240

220

200

180

160

140
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
CropSyst validation
Crop performance (DM t ha -1)

Biomass Yield

8 3

Wheat
Mustard
6
Field pea
2
Simulated

1
2 y = 0.73x + 0.76
2 y = 0.84x + 0.10
r = 0.79 2
r = 0.81

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3
Observed Observed
CropSyst validation
water use
Wheat
Mustard

400
400
350
y = 0.61x + 94.91 350
300 r2 = 0.50
300
Sim ulated (m m )

Sim ulated (m m )
250
FW 250
200
MW 200
150
150
100 y = 1.14x - 8.81 100 y = 1.02x + 8.07
50 r2 = 0.76
50 r2 = 0.57
0
Field pea 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Observed (mm )
400 Observed (mm )

350 y = 1.60x - 79.86

r2 = 0.78
300
Sim ulated (m m )

250
FWP
200
MWP
150

100
y = 1.64x - 74.66
50 r2 = 0.81
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Observed (m m )
Model application
Analysis of some agronomic
practices in the Victorian Mallee
In terms of:
Water balance
Estimating drainage under different
crop management
Also runoff
Water use efficiency
Nitrogen uses
Comparing rotations:
Wheat continuous
Fallow-wheat
Fallow-wheat-pea
Mustard-wheat-pea
Crop management effects
Yield-profit efficiency
Model application
Environmental conditions
of the Victorian Mallee

61 year of weather data

from Walpeup (1939-1999)
Included several dry-wet seasons

Representative Mallee plain

soil type
Sandy soil
Experimental design
3 Tillage
CT Conventional till (4LF-3SF till)
MT Minimum tillage (2 till)
ZT Zero till (0 till)
2 Stubble management
SG stubble grazing (65 %)
SB stubble burning (10 %)
3 Fertilisation levels
F1 No N applied to any crop (minimum
yield)
F2 Current N fertiliser (Wheat & Mustard)
F3 Simulation without N routine
(potential yield)
4 Rotations and 3 crops
FW Fallow -wheat (50 %)
FWP Fallow -wheat- pea (66 %)
WW Wheat continuous (100%)
MWP Mustard-
Mustard wheat- pea (100%)
10 000 simulated years
Some results
Water drainage
Water runoff

Effect of stubble management

in the water balance

Effect of fertilisation
levels
Yield potential on the Mallee
(potential yield)
Annual variability
Effect of crop
diversification
Model consistency
6000
y = 15.62x
5000

Grain yield (kg ha-1)

2
r = 0.65
4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 50 100 150 200
6000
Actual transpiration (mm)
5000 y = 11.91x - 1327.06
Grain yield (kg ha-1)

2
r = 0.42
4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400
Water use (mm)
Model consistency

7000
y = 0.35x - 498.77
6000 2
r = 0.88 line 2:5
5000
Yield (kg ha-1)

4000

3000
2000
1000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Biomass (kg ha-1)
Water runoff
Runoff events
Annual rainfall > 250 mm
soil SCS curve number, slope < 1 %
No differences among treatments
FW: Probability of exceedence

1.0
CTF2SG
0.8
MTF2SG
0.6 ZTF2SG
0.4 CTF2SB
MTF2SB
0.2
ZTF2SB
0.0
-50 0 50 100 150 200
Runoff (mm)
Crops and rotations FW Fallow -wheat (50 %)
FWP Fallow -wheat- pea (66 %)
WW Wheat continuous (100%)
MWP Mustard-
Mustard wheat- pea (100%)

5000
Grain yield (kg ha-1)

CT SB F1 WW wheat y = -1.0713x2 + 4223.3x - 4E+06

4000 r2 = 0.4775

3000
2000
1000
0
1938 1950 1962 1974 1986 1998
Year

5000 y = -1.24x2 + 4886.3x - 5E+06

Grain yield (kg ha-1)

ZT SG F3 FW wheat r 2 = 0.1607
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1938 1950 1962 1974 1986 1998
Year
Farmer decision profit profit

Gross margins

Annualized gross margins

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
F2
F1
F2

F2
F1
F2

F1
F2
F1

F2
F1
F2

F1
F2
F1
F2

F1
F2
F1
F2

F1
F2
F1

F1
F2
F1

F1
F2

F2
F1

F1
F2

F1
F2

F1
F2
-10 CT MT ZT CT MT ZT CT MT ZT CT MT ZT CT MT ZT CT MT ZT

-20 FW FWP WW FW FWP WW

SB SG
STUBBLE ROTATION TILLAGE FERTIL
Farmer decision
Seasonal variation in the anualized yield and profitability of rotations in
the Victorian Mallee (Australia)
Lower (20%) Median Upper (80%)
Rotation
FW 0N Yield kg ha-1 580 780 1046
Profit AUD ha y -1 -1 100
21 100
45 100
77
-1
+N Yield kg ha 619 803 961
Profit AUD ha y -1 -1 92
19 4292 79
61
-1
WW 0N Yield kg ha 650 970 1391
Profit AUD ha y -1 -1 -91
-19 1942 90
69
-1
+N Yield kg ha 569 1026 1320
-1 -1 -197
Profit AUD ha y -42 1328 62
48
-1
FWP 0N Yield kg ha 566 862 1151
-1 -1 -48
Profit AUD ha y -10 3578 103
79
+N Yield kg ha-1 555 867 1103
-1 -1
Profit AUD ha y -78
-17 3169 89
69
-1
MWP 0N Yield kg ha 487 773 1069
-1 -1
Profit AUD ha y -374
-79 -32-71 22
17
-1
+N Yield kg ha 477 786 1046
-1 -1
Profit AUD ha y -457
-97 -103
-47 -3
-2
Average of annualized yield
Farmer decision
FW
1.0

Probability of exceedence
CTF2SG
0.8 MTF2SG
ZTF2SG
0.6
ZTF3SG
CTF2SB
0.4
MTF2SB
0.2 ZTF2SB
ZTF3SB
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Grain yield (kg/ha)

FWP
1.0
Probability of exceedence

CTF2SG
0.8 MTF2SG
ZTF2SG
0.6
ZTF3SG
CTF2SB
0.4
MTF2SB
0.2 ZTF2SB
ZTF3SB
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Grain yield (kg/ha)

Wheat yields
Farmer decision
Pea
1.0

Probability of exceedence
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Field peas

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Grain yield (kg/ha)
FWP
1.0
Probability of exceedence

CTF2SG
0.8 MTF2SG
ZTF2SG
0.6
ZTF3SG
CTF2SB
0.4
MTF2SB
0.2 ZTF2SB
ZTF3SB
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Grain yield (kg/ha)

Wheat yields
Some results
Stubble management:
SG stubble grazing
SB stubble burning

Maintenance of stubble increased the

water retention
It had a positive effect on yield but
also on water drainage
Some results
Fertilisation levels
F1 No N applied to any crop (minimum
yield)
F2 Current N fertiliser (Wheat &
Mustard)
There were little differences
between F1 and F2

F3 without N simulation (potential

yield)
Showed that actual yield can be
double with optimum N application
Increased stability in low
intensity rotations but did not
occur in high intensive land uses,
water was the limiting factor
Conclusions
CropSyst showed a good
performance compared with
observed data and other
models
Long term application of
CropSyst showed the effect
of different management on
drainage, runoff, crop
yield and profitability
CropSyst appears ideal to
address some of the Mallee
issues
 Ejercicio
Uso del modelo - manejo de archivos
simulaciones pre-establecidas

Identificacin de problema en un rea de inters

e.g. influencia de la lluvia y nutrientes sobre el rendimiento de los cultivos
Planteo de objetivos
Diseo de experimentos de simulacin
Parametrizacin del modelo
Ejecucin de experimentos
Anlisis de sensibilidad
Anlisis de resultados [informe opcional]

CSIRO LAND and WATER