Comparison of AquaCrop and SWAP Models in Simulating Growth and Water Productivity of Bell Pepper under Salinity and Drought Stress

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Corresponding Author, Associate Prof., Dept. of Water Engineering, College of Water and Soil, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Student of Water Engineering, College of Water and Soil, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran.

Abstract

Background and Objective: The use of simulation models is a strategy in agricultural water management and an effective method for predicting the impact of irrigation management and water quality on crop yield and water use efficiency. Given the existence of environmental stresses in each region, crop models must be evaluated and validated locally. Moreover, since investigating environmental and management factors such as irrigation water quantity and salinity, as well as soil amendments, on crop yield and water use efficiency requires costly and time-consuming field experiments, the effects of these factors can be simulated using crop models. In recent years, numerous models have been employed to study the interactions between water, soil, and plants. AquaCrop and SWAP are two examples of such models. These models must be calibrated and evaluated for each specific crop and region. The core of these models is the crop yield response to water use, and they simulate crop yield using climatic, plant, soil, and management variables. Although crop models are among the widely used tools for simulating crop performance under different field management practices, attention to their sensitivity to input parameters can enhance calibration and reduce simulation errors. Sensitivity analysis of variables helps researchers gain sufficient insight into the influence of each parameter and its variation during the calibration stage.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted over two growing seasons, in the second half of February 2022 and 2023, at the research farm located in Zahak County Located in Sistan and Baluchestan Province. The experiment was laid out as a split-plot design in a randomized complete block with three replications. The treatments included three levels of irrigation water (I1, I2, I3 corresponding to 60%, 80%, and 100% of field capacity) and three salinity levels of irrigation water (S1, S2, S3 corresponding to 1, 3, and 5 dS/m, respectively).The land was initially plowed, disked, and plot arrangements were made. Each plot was 4 meters long and 3 meters wide. A spacing of 1 meter was maintained between subplots and 2 meters between main plots. Each plot contained five planting rows, with the two outer rows considered as borders, and data were collected from the middle rows. The spacing between rows was 75 cm, and between plants within each row was 30 cm. In both years, the first harvest of fruits was carried out in mid-May, and a total of eight harvests were performed. At the end of the harvest season, crop yield was measured, and water use efficiency was calculated. To simulate the effects of salinity and water deficit on yield and water productivity, two models—AquaCrop and SWAP—were used. Data from the first year were used for model calibration, and data from the second year were used for model validation. Model performance and accuracy were evaluated using statistical indices including Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Bias Error (MBE), Coefficient of Determination (R²), and Model Efficiency (EF). Additionally, sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the models' sensitivity to changes in input parameters and to identify essential data for calibration. For the sensitivity analysis, each input parameter was individually changed by 25% while keeping all other parameters constant, and the model was run under the new conditions. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that both models exhibited low to moderate sensitivity to the examined parameters.
Findings: Based on the comparison between measured and simulated values of quinoa yield and water use efficiency, and the calculated statistical evaluation indices, it can be stated that both AquaCrop and SWAP models were able to simulate yield and water use efficiency effectively under varying quantities and qualities of irrigation water. In both models, the discrepancies between the measured and simulated values of yield and water use efficiency were within 10%.The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Normalized RMSE (NRMSE), Mean Bias Error (MBE), Coefficient of Determination (R²), and Model Efficiency (EF) for yield during the validation stage using the AquaCrop model were 2.34, 0.16, –1.85, 0.93, and 0.87, respectively. For water use efficiency, these values were 0.36, 0.19, –0.42, 0.89, and 0.81, respectively. For the SWAP model during the validation stage, the RMSE, NRMSE, MBE, R², and EF for yield were 2.89, 0.17, –1.83, 0.92, and 0.84, respectively, and for water use efficiency were 0.43, 0.19, –0.38, 0.89, and 0.82, respectively. Given the lower error indices in the AquaCrop model, it can be concluded that AquaCrop simulated the yield and water use efficiency of bell pepper more accurately than the SWAP model under salinity and deficit irrigation stress conditions. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicated moderate to low sensitivity of both models to the parameters examined. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that both models exhibited low to moderate sensitivity to the examined parameters.
Conclusion: Based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that both AquaCrop and SWAP models can be used with acceptable confidence levels to simulate the yield and water use efficiency of bell pepper under various quantitative and qualitative irrigation water treatments. These models can serve as powerful and efficient tools to support farmers, designers, specialists, and agricultural managers in selecting optimal irrigation management strategies. However, the AquaCrop model demonstrated higher accuracy. Hence, given that the AquaCrop model requires relatively fewer input parameters than other crop models and possesses high accuracy and reliability in simulating plant growth, it can serve as an efficient tool for evaluating plant responses to changes in both the quantity and quality of irrigation water.

Keywords

Main Subjects


1.FAO. (2021). The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture 2021: Systems at Breaking Point. FAO.
2.Munns, R., & Tester, M. (2008). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59, 651-681. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911.
3.Van Dam, J. C., et al. (1997). SWAP Version 2.0: Theory Description and User Manual. Wageningen Agricultural University.
4.Todorovic, M., et al. (2014). Comparison of AquaCrop and SWAP models in simulating tomato growth under water stress. Irrigation Science, 32(2), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-013-0421-7.
5.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. Agricultural Water Management, 96(10), 1435–1446. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.agwat.2009.05.020.
6.Steduto, P., et al. (2009). AquaCrop-The FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water. I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agricultural Water Management, 96(3), 429-437. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.09.011.
7.Tourajzadeh, O., Piri, H., & Barati, M. (2024). Sensitivity analysis and evaluation of AquaCrop model in simulating water productivity and quinoa yield under different irrigation water amount and salinity management and biochar and nanobiochar application. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation, 31(1), 1-25.
8.Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., & Fereres, E. (2017). AquaCrop: FAO’s Crop-Water Productivity Model. FAO.
9.Kaviani, B., et al. (2018). Simulation of growth and water productivity of bell pepper under deficit irrigation. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 41(10), 1342-1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2018.1450426.
10.Gharibvand, J., Piri, H., Haghighatjoo, P., & Naserin, A. (2025). Sensitivity analysis of the AquaCrop model under salinity and water stress in tape drip irrigation in quinoa plant. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation, 32(1).
11.Kool, D., et al. (2014). Review of SWAP model applications. Agricultural Water Management, 144, 123-134.
12.Karimi Avargani, H. A., Rahimikhoob, A., & Nazari Fard, M. (2019). Sensitivity analysis of AquaCrop model for barley in Pakdasht region. Journal of Water and Soil Science, 23(3), 53-63. [In Persian]
13.Kroes, J. G., Van Dam, J. C., Bartholomeus, R. P., Groenendijk, P., Heinen, M., Hendriks, R. F. A., & Van Walsum, P. E. V. (2017). SWAP Version 4: Theory Description and User Manual. Alterra Report 2780, Wageningen University & Research.
14.Nisi, K., Aghdarnajad, A., & Abbasi, F. (2023). Evaluation of the SWAP model for simulating maize yield and water productivity under different water and fertilizer management practices. Irrigation and Drainage, Iran, 17(3), 573-584.
15.Mousavi, A. H., Egdernezhad, A., & Gilani, A. (2019). Yield and water use efficiency simulation of different rice cultivars under various cultivation methods using AquaCrop and SWAP. Water Management in Agriculture, 6(1), 123-134.
16.Sandhu, R., & Irmak, S. (2019). Performance of AquaCrop model in simulating maize growth, yield, and evapotranspiration under rainfed, limited and full irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 223, 105687.
17.Kurunç, A., Ünlükara, A., & Cemek, B. (2011). Salinity and drought affect yield response of bell pepper similarly. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science, 61(3), 207-213.
18.Gammoudi, N., Yahia, L. B., Lachiheb, B., & Ferchichi, A. J. J. (2016). Salt response in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.): Components of photosynthesis inhibition, proline accumulation and K⁺/Na⁺ selectivity. Journal of Aridland Agriculture, 2, 1-12.
19.Khan, M. I. R., et al. (2019). Salinity and drought stress responses in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.): A review. Agricultural Water Management, 210, 42-56.
20.Golshani, H., & Khoshsimaie Chenar, M. (2024). Evaluation of AquaCrop and SWAP models in simulating the growth and biomass of different maize cultivars under saline water drip irrigation. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 55(4), 615-636.
21.Negaresh, H., & Latifi, L. (2018). The origin of wind deposits in the east of Zabol through morphoscopy and physical and chemical analysis of sediments. Geography and Environmental Planning, 20(1), 1-22.
22.Liu, F., Savic, S., Jensen, C. R., Shahnazari, A., Jacobsen, S., & Andersen, M. N. (2006). Water relations and yield of lysimeter-grown strawberries under limited irrigation. Scientia Horticulturae, 111, 128-132.
23.Payero, J. O., Melvin, S. R., Irmak, S., & Tarkalson, D. (2009). Yield response of corn to deficit irrigation in a semiarid climate. Agricultural Water Management, 84, 101-112.
24.Van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J., & Yates, S. R. (1991). The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils, version 1.0. EPA Report 600/2-91/065, USDA-ARS.
25.Ansari, M. A., Egdernezhad, A., & Ebrahimipak, N. A. (2022). Evaluation of SWAP for simulation of potato and determination of adequate irrigation depth. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 16(5), 891-903.
26.Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Miranda, R., & Cusicanqui, J. A. (2009). Simulating yield response to water of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) with FAO-AquaCrop. Agronomy Journal, 101, 499-508.
27.Ahmadee, M., Ghanbarpouri, M., & Egdernezhad, A. (2021). Applied irrigation water of wheat using sensitivity analysis and evaluation of AquaCrop. Water Management in Agriculture, 8(1), 15-30. [In Persian]
28.Nasrolahi, A. H., Ahmadee, M., & Rustum, R. (2024). Sensitivity analysis of AquaCrop model for winter wheat under different water supply conditions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 150(2).
29.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. Agricultural Water Management, 96, 351-363.
30.Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Fereres, E., & Raes, D. (2012). Crop yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 66.
31.Greaves, G. E., & Wang, Y. M. (2016). Assessment of FAO AquaCrop model for simulating maize growth and productivity under deficit irrigation in northern China. Agricultural Water Management, 168, 85-97.
32.Shabani, A., Zakarinia, M., & Hossam, M. (2018). Evaluation of AquaCrop model in simulating soybean yield under salinity stress and different irrigation levels. Irrigation Science and Engineering, 42(1), 49-62. [In Persian]
33.Karimi, Sh., Egdernezhad, A., & Nakhjavanimoghaddam, M. M. (2021). Evaluation of SWAP for simulation of medium and early corn cultivars under different plant densities under sprinkler irrigation. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 14(6), 1893-1907.