Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Process-based crop models have faced rapid development over the last years, and many modelling platforms are now available and can be used in a wide range of conditions. Whilst the selection of a model should be suited to the purpose of its application, very few studies focused on the impact of choosing different model structures and data details on the simulation outputs. One important aspect is the soil water dynamics, which can be simulated at different levels of details in terms of data and approaches. In this study, we investigated the impact of model structure and data detail on simulations of sugarcane growth and irrigation scheduling. Three different soil water routines (Standalone, Tipping-Bucket, SWAP) were coupled with the SAMUCA model and calibrated with a comprehensive field experiment dataset. We also tested the influence of using simplified homogeneous (SL) and detailed (DL) soil profile information in model performance. The model framework was evaluated against independent field experiments across Brazil and used to simulate long-term sugarcane growth and irrigation scheduling. After calibration, the SWAP-DL showed the highest accuracy in soil moisture predictions, with a 6 % error (RRMSE), but the difference from TippingBucket-DL was small (8 %). While the performance of stalk dry mass, LAI and water-use efficiency simulations were within the range found in literature, comprehensive field experiments showing significant impacts of drought on sugarcane growth are still lacking for a more rigorous evaluation. Both SWAP and tipping-bucket approaches showed higher robustness to soil data detail as compared to the Standalone method, which should be avoided when soil water is critical for sugarcane growth. The use of tipping-bucket method may still be preferred when the research goal is focused on crop growth and soil parameters are limited. SWAP-SAMUCA may provide an extended ability to represent agrohydrological processes in sugarcane plantations and process understanding.
Vianna et al. (Fri,) studied this question.