Coucheney, E., Buis, S., Launay, M., Constantin, J., Mary, B., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., et al. (2015). Accuracy, robustness and behavior of the STICS soil–crop model for plant, water and nitrogen outputs: Evaluation over a wide range of agro-environmental conditions in France. Env. Model. Softw., 64, 177–190.
Abstract: Soil-crop models are increasingly used as predictive tools to assess yield and environmental impacts of agriculture in a growing diversity of contexts. They are however seldom evaluated at a given time over a wide domain of use. We tested here the performances of the STICS model (v8.2.2) with its standard set of parameters over a dataset covering 15 crops and a wide range of agropedoclimatic conditions in France. Model results showed a good overall accuracy, with little bias. Relative RMSE was larger for soil nitrate (49%) than for plant biomass (35%) and nitrogen (33%) and smallest for soil water (10%). Trends induced by contrasted environmental conditions and management practices were well reproduced. Finally, limited dependency of model errors on crops or environments indicated a satisfactory robustness. Such performances make STICS a valuable tool for studying the effects of changes in agro-ecosystems over the domain explored. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
Conradt, T., Wechsung, F., & Bronstert, A. (2013). Three perceptions of the evapotranspiration landscape: comparing spatial patterns from a distributed hydrological model, remotely sensed surface temperatures, and sub-basin water balances. Hydrol. Earth System Sci., 17(7), 2947–2966.
Abstract: A problem encountered by many distributed hydrological modelling studies is high simulation errors at interior gauges when the model is only globally calibrated at the outlet. We simulated river runoff in the Elbe River basin in central Europe (148 268 km(2)) with the semi-distributed eco-hydrological model SWIM (Soil and Water Integrated Model). While global parameter optimisation led to Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies of 0.9 at the main outlet gauge, comparisons with measured runoff series at interior points revealed large deviations. Therefore, we compared three different strategies for deriving sub-basin evapotranspiration: (1) modelled by SWIM without any spatial calibration, (2) derived from remotely sensed surface temperatures, and (3) calculated from long-term precipitation and discharge data. The results show certain consistencies between the modelled and the remote sensing based evapotranspiration rates, but there seems to be no correlation between remote sensing and water balance based estimations. Subsequent analyses for single sub-basins identify amongst others input weather data and systematic error amplification in inter-gauge discharge calculations as sources of uncertainty. The results encourage careful utilisation of different data sources for enhancements in distributed hydrological modelling.
|
|