Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:52:54.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The performance of Metop Advanced SCATterometer soil moisture data as a complementary source for the estimation of crop-soil water balance in Central Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

S. Thaler ,
J. Eitzinger ,
M. Trnka ,
M. Možný ,
S. Hahn ,
W. Wagner  and
P. Hlavinka
S. Thaler*
Affiliation:
Institute of Meteorology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendl-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
J. Eitzinger
Affiliation:
Institute of Meteorology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendl-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute CAS, Belidla 986, 4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic
M. Trnka
Affiliation:
CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute CAS, Belidla 986, 4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic Institute of Agrosystems and Bioclimatology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, Brno 613 00, Czech Republic
M. Možný
Affiliation:
Doksany Observatory, Climatology Section, Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, 411 82 Doksany, Czech Republic
S. Hahn
Affiliation:
Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien), Gußhausstraße 27-29, 1040 Vienna, Austria
W. Wagner
Affiliation:
Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien), Gußhausstraße 27-29, 1040 Vienna, Austria
P. Hlavinka
Affiliation:
CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute CAS, Belidla 986, 4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic Institute of Agrosystems and Bioclimatology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, Brno 613 00, Czech Republic
*
Author for correspondence: S. Thaler, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Simulation of the water balance in cropping systems is an essential tool, not only to monitor water status and determine drought but also to find ways in which soil water and irrigation water can be used more efficiently. However, besides the requirement that models are physically correct, the spatial representativeness of input data and, in particular, accurate precipitation data remain a challenge. In recent years, satellite-based soil moisture products have become an important data source for soil wetness information at various spatial-temporal scales. Four different study areas in the Czech Republic and Austria were selected representing Central European soil and climatic conditions. The performance of soil water content outputs from two different crop-water balance models and the Metop Advanced SCATterometer (ASCAT) soil moisture product was tested with field measurements from 2007 to 2011. The model output for soil water content shows that the crop model Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer performs well during dry periods (<30% plant available soil moisture (ASM), whereas the soil water-balance model SoilClim presents the best results in humid months (>60% ASM). Moreover, the model performance is best in the early growing season and decreases later in the season due to biases in simulated crop-related above-ground biomass compared with the relatively stable grass canopy of the measurement sites. The Metop ASCAT soil moisture product, which presents a spatial average of soil surface moisture, shows the best performance under medium soil wetness conditions (30–50% ASM), which is related to low variation in precipitation frequency and under conditions of low-surface biomass (early vegetation season).

Keywords

Crop growth modelDSSATSoilClimMetop ASCAT soil moisturesoil water balance
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 156 , Themed Issue 5: Themed Issue: Assessment and monitoring of crop water use and productivity under present and future climate , July 2018 , pp. 577 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addiscott, TM and Wagenet, RJ (1985) Concepts of solute leaching in soils: a review of modeling approaches. Journal of Soil Science 36, 411–424.Google Scholar
Allen, GA, Pereira, LS, Raes, D and Smith, M (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Aydin, M (2008) A model for evaporation and drainage investigations at ground of ordinary rainfed-areas. Ecological Modelling 217, 148–156.Google Scholar
Balsamo, G, Albergel, C, Beljaars, ACM, Boussetta, S, Brun, E, Cloke, HL, Dee, DP, Dutra, E, Pappenberger, F, De Rosnay, P, Sabater, JM, Stockdale, T and Vitart, F (2012) ERA-Interim/Land: A Global Land-Surface Reanalysis Based on ERA-Interim Meteorological Forcing. ERA Report Series no. 13. Reading, UK: ECMWF.Google Scholar
Battisti, R, Sentelhas, PC and Boote, KJ (2017) Inter-comparison of performance of soybean crop simulation models and their ensemble in southern Brazil. Field Crops Research 200, 28–37.Google Scholar
Boote, KJ, Sau, F, Hoogenboom, G and Jones, JW (2008) Experience with water balance, evapotranspiration, and predictions of water stress effects in the CROPGRO model. In Reddy, VR, Ahuja, LR, Sassendran, SA and Yu, Q (eds). Response of Crops to Limited Water: Understanding and Modeling Water Stress Effects on Plant Growth Processes. Madison, WI, USA: ASA – CSSA – SSSA, pp. 59–103.Google Scholar
Bouman, BAM (1994) A framework to deal with uncertainty in soil and management parameters in crop yield simulation: a case study for rice. Agricultural Systems 46, 1–17.Google Scholar
Brázdil, R, Dobrovolný, P, Trnka, M, Kotyza, O, Řezníčková, L, Valášek, H, Zahradníček, P and Štěpánek, P (2013) Droughts in the Czech Lands, 1090–2012 AD. Climate of the Past 9, 1985–2002.Google Scholar
Brázdil, R, Trnka, M, Mikšovský, J, Řezníčková, L and Dobrovolný, P (2015) Spring-summer droughts in the Czech Land in 1805–2012 and their forcings. International Journal of Climatology 35, 1405–1421.Google Scholar
Brocca, L, Melone, F, Moramarco, T, Wagner, W and Albergel, C (2013) Scaling and filtering approaches for the use of satellite soil moisture observations. In Petropoulos, GP (ed.). Remote Sensing of Energy Fluxes and Soil Moisture Content. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, pp. 411–426.Google Scholar
Brocca, L, Crow, WT, Ciabatta, L, Massari, C, de Rosnay, P, Enenkel, M, Hahn, S, Amarnath, G, Camici, S, Tarpanelli, A and Wagner, W (2017) A review of the applications of ASCAT soil moisture products. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 10, 2285–2306.Google Scholar
Büntgen, U, Bràzdil, R, Dobrovolný, P, Trnka, M and Kyncl, T (2011) Five centuries of Southern Moravian drought variations revealed from living and historic tree rings. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 105, 167–180.Google Scholar
Campbell Scientific Inc. (1995) CS615 Water Content Reflectometer Instruction Manual. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Campbell Scientific Inc.Google Scholar
Campos, I, Balbontín, C, González-Piqueras, J, González-Dugo, MP, Neale, CMU and Calera, A (2016) Combining a water balance model with evapotranspiration measurements to estimate total available soil water in irrigated and rainfed vineyards. Agricultural Water Management 165, 141–152.Google Scholar
Darcy, H (1856) Les fontaines publiques de la ville Dijon. Paris, France: Dalmont.Google Scholar
Eitzinger, J, Trnka, M, Hösch, J, Zalud, Z and Dubrovsky, M (2004) Comparison of CERES, WOFOST and SWAP models in simulating soil water content during growing season under different soil conditions. Ecological Modelling 171, 223–246.Google Scholar
Eitzinger, J, Formayer, H, Thaler, S, Trnka, M, Zdenek, Z and Alexandrov, V (2008) Results and uncertainties of climate change impact research in agricultural crop production in Central Europe. Die Bodenkultur 59, 131–147.Google Scholar
Eitzinger, J, Thaler, S, Schmid, E, Strauss, F, Ferrise, R, Moriondo, M, Bindi, M, Palosuo, T, Rotter, R, Kersebaum, KC, Olesen, JE, Patil, RH, Saylan, L, Caldag, B and Caylak, O (2013 a) Sensitivities of crop models to extreme weather conditions during flowering period demonstrated for maize and winter wheat in Austria. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 151, 813–835.Google Scholar
Eitzinger, J, Trnka, M, Semerádová, D, Thaler, S, Svobodová, E, Hlavinka, P, Siska, B, Takác, J, Malatinská, L, Nováková, M, Dubrovsky, M and Zalud, Z (2013 b) Regional climate change impacts on agricultural crop production in Central and Eastern Europe—hotspots, regional differences and common trends. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 151, 787–812.Google Scholar
Figa-Saldaña, J, Wilson, JJW, Attema, E, Gelsthorpe, R, Drinkwater, MR and Stoffelen, A (2002) The advanced scatterometer (ASCAT) on the meteorological operational (MetOp) platform: a follow on for European wind scatterometers. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 28, 404–412.Google Scholar
Gruber, A, Su, CH, Zwieback, S, Crow, W, Dorigo, W and Wagner, W (2016) Recent advances in (soil moisture) triple collocation analysis. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 45(Part B), 200–211.Google Scholar
Hlavinka, P, Trnka, M, Semerádová, D, Dubrovsky, M, Zalud, Z and Možný, M (2009) Effect of drought on yield variability of key crops in Czech Republic. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149, 431–442.Google Scholar
Hlavinka, P, Trnka, M, Balek, J, Semerádová, D, Hayes, M, Svoboda, M, Eitzinger, J, Možný, M, Fischer, M, Hunt, E and Žalud, Z (2011) Development and evaluation of the SoilClim model for water balance and soil climate estimates. Agricultural Water Management 98, 1249–1261.Google Scholar
Hoogenboom, G, Jones, JW, Porter, CH, Wilkens, PW, Boote, KJ, Batchelor, WD, Hunt, LA and Tsuji, GY (2003) Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer Version 4.0. Volume 1: Overview. Honolulu, HI, USA: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Huang, X, Huang, G, Yu, C, Ni, S and Yu, L (2017) A multiple crop model ensemble for improving broad-scale yield prediction using Bayesian model averaging. Field Crops Research 211, 114–124.Google Scholar
Hunt, LA, White, JW and Hoogenboom, G (2001) Agronomic data: advances in documentation and protocols for exchange and use. Agricultural Systems 70, 477–492.Google Scholar
Jones, CA and Kiniry, JR (1986) CERES-Maize: A Simulation Model of Maize Growth and Development. College Station, Texas, USA: A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, JW and Ritchie, JT (1991) Crop growth models. In Hoffman, GJ, Howell, TA and Soloman, KH (eds). Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. St. Joseph, MI, USA: ASAE, pp. 63–89.Google Scholar
Jones, JW (1993) Decision support systems for agricultural development. In Penning de Vries, F, Teng, P, Metselaar, K (eds). Systems Approaches for Agricultural Deelopment. Boston, USA: Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 459–471.Google Scholar
Jones, JW, Keating, BA and Porter, CH (2001) Approaches to modular model development. Agricultural Systems 70, 421–443.Google Scholar
Jones, JW, Hoogenboom, G, Porter, CH, Boote, KJ, Batchelor, WD, Hunt, LA, Wilkens, PW, Singh, U, Gijsman, AJ and Ritchie, JT (2003) The DSSAT cropping system model. European Journal of Agronomy 18, 235–265.Google Scholar
Kirkham, MB (2014) Principles of Soil and Plant Water Relations, 2nd edn. New York, USA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kolář, T, Giagli, K, Trnka, M, Bednářová, E, Vavrčík, H and Rybníček, M (2016) Response of the leaf phenology and tree-ring width of European beech to climate variability. Silva Fennica 50, article ID 1520, 1–18. doi: 10.14214/sf.1520.Google Scholar
Kollas, C, Kersebaum, KC, Nendel, C, Manevski, K, Müller, C, Palosuo, T, Armas-Herrera, CM, Beaudoin, N, Bindi, M, Charfeddine, M, Conradt, T, Constantin, J, Eitzinger, J, Ewert, F, Ferrise, R, Gaiser, T, de Cortazar-Atauri, IG, Giglio, L, Hlavinka, P, Hoffmann, H, Hoffmann, MP, Launay, M, Manderscheid, R, Mary, B, Mirschel, W, Moriondo, M, Olesen, JE, Öztürk, I, Pacholski, A, Ripoche-Wachter, D, Roggero, PP, Roncossek, S, Rötter, RP, Ruget, F, Sharif, B, Trnka, M, Ventrella, D, Waha, K, Wegehenkel, M, Weigel, H-J and Wu, L (2015) Crop rotation modelling – a European model intercomparison. European Journal of Agronomy 70, 98–111.Google Scholar
Linker, R, Ioslovic, I, Sylaios, G, Plauborg, F and Battilani, A (2016) Optimal model-based deficit irrigation scheduling using AquaCrop: a simulation study with cotton, potato and tomato. Agricultural Water Management 163, 236–243.Google Scholar
Manfreda, S, Brocca, L, Moramarco, T, Melone, F and Sheffield, J (2014) A physically based approach for the estimation of root-zone soil moisture from surface measurements. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18, 1199–1212.Google Scholar
Martínez-Fernández, J, González-Zamora, A, Sánchez, N, Gumuzzio, A and Herrero-Jiménez, CM (2016) Satellite soil moisture for agricultural drought monitoring: assessment of the SMOS derived soil water deficit index. Remote Sensing of Environment 177, 277–286.Google Scholar
Masutomi, Y, Takahashi, K, Harasawa, H and Matsuoka, Y (2009) Impact assessment of climate change on rice production in Asia in comprehensive consideration of process/parameter uncertainty in general circulation models. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131, 281–291.Google Scholar
Mearns, LO, Rosenzweig, C and Goldberg, R (1997) Mean and variance change in climate scenarios: methods, agricultural applications, and measures of uncertainty. Climatic Change 35, 367–396.Google Scholar
Mebane, VJ, Day, RL, Hamlett, JM, Watson, JE and Roth, GW (2013) Validating the FAO AquaCrop model for rainfed maize in Pennsylvania. Agronomy Journal 105, 419–427.Google Scholar
Možný, M, Trnka, M, Zalud, Z, Hlavinka, P, Nekovar, J, Potop, V and Virag, M (2012) Use of a soil moisture network for drought monitoring in the Czech Republic. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 107, 99–111.Google Scholar
Nicolai-Shaw, N, Hirschi, M, Mittelbach, H and Seneviratne, SI (2015) Spatial representativeness of soil moisture using in situ, remote sensing, and land reanalysis data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 120, 9955–9964.Google Scholar
Nonhebel, S (1994) The effects of use of average instead of daily weather data in crop growth simulation models. Agricultural Systems 44, 377–396.Google Scholar
Otter-Nacke, S, Ritchie, JT, Godwin, DC and Singh, U (1991) A User's Guide to CERES Barley – V2.10. Muscle Shoals, Alabama, USA: International Fertilizer Development Center.Google Scholar
Pachepsky, Y and Acock, B (1998) Stochastic imaging of soil parameters to assess variability and uncertainty of crop yield estimates. Geoderma 85, 213–229.Google Scholar
Palosuo, T, Kersebaum, KC, Angulo, C, Hlavinka, P, Moriondo, M, Olesen, JE, Patil, RH, Ruget, F, Rumbaur, C, Takac, J, Trnka, M, Bindi, M, Caldag, B, Ewert, F, Ferrise, R, Mirschel, W, Saylan, L, Siska, B and Rötter, R (2011) Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: a comparison of eight crop growth models. European Journal of Agronomy 35, 103–114.Google Scholar
Panigrahi, B and Panda, SN (2003) Field test of a soil water balance simulation model. Agricultural Water Management 58, 223–240.Google Scholar
Paulik, C, Dorigo, W, Wagner, W and Kidd, R (2014) Validation of the ASCAT soil water index using in situ data from the International Soil Moisture Network. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 30, 1–8.Google Scholar
Porporato, A, Daly, E and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I (2004) Soil water balance and ecosystem response to climate change. American Naturalist 164, 625–632.Google Scholar
Richards, LA (1941) Hydraulics of water in unsaturated soils. Agricultural Engineering 22, 325–326.Google Scholar
Ritchie, JT (1998) Soil water balance in plant water stress. In Tsuji, GY, Hoogenboom, G and Thornton, PK (eds). Understanding Options for Agricultural Production. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 41–54.Google Scholar
Ritchie, JT and Otter, S (1985) Description and performance of CERES-wheat: a user-oriented wheat yield model. In Willis, WO (ed.). Agricultural Research Service Wheat Yield Model, ARS-38. Springfield, Virginia, USA: Natural Technology Information Service, pp. 159–175.Google Scholar
Rodell, M, Houser, PR, Jambor, U, Gottschalck, J, Mitchell, K, Meng, C-J, Arsenault, K, Cosgrove, B, Radakovich, J, Bosilovich, M, Entin, JK, Walker, JP, Lohmann, D and Toll, D (2004) The global land data assimilation system. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 85, 381–394.Google Scholar
Rötter, RP, Palosuo, T, Kersebaum, KC, Angulo, C, Bindi, M, Ewert, F, Ferrise, R, Hlavinka, P, Moriondo, M, Nendel, C, Olesen, JE, Patil, RH, Ruget, F, Takác, J and Trnka, M (2012) Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: a comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research 133, 23–36.Google Scholar
Rybníček, M, Čermák, P, Žid, T, Kolář, T, Trnka, M and Büntgen, U (2015) Exploring growth variability and crown vitality of Sessile Oak (Quercus petraea) in the Czech Republic. Geochronometria 42, 17–27.Google Scholar
Saseendran, SA, Trout, TJ, Ahuja, LR, Ma, L, McMaster, GS, Nielsen, DC, Andales, AA, Chávez, JL and Ham, J (2015) Quantifying crop water stress factors from soil water measurements in a limited irrigation experiment. Agricultural Systems 137, 191–205.Google Scholar
Sastri, ASRAS (1993) Agricultural drought management strategies to alleviate impacts: examples from the arid and subhumid regions of the Indian subcontinent. In Wilhite, DA (ed.). Drought Assessment, Management, and Planning: Theory and Case Studies. Boston, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
Saue, T and Kadaja, J (2014) Water limitations on potato yield in Estonia assessed by crop modelling. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 194, 20–28.Google Scholar
Semenov, MA and Porter, JR (1995) Non-linearity in climate change impact assessments. Journal of Biogeography 22, 597–600.Google Scholar
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1972) National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology Section, Vol. 4, Chapters 4–10. Washington, DC, USA: USDA.Google Scholar
Soltani, A, Meinke, H and de Voli, P (2004) Assessing linear interpolatiom to generate daily radiation and temperature data for use in crop simulations. European Journal of Agronomy 21, 133–148.Google Scholar
Stoffelen, A (1998) Toward the true near-surface wind speed: error modeling and calibration using triple collocation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 103, 7755–7766.Google Scholar
Tatsumi, K, Yamashiki, Y and Takara, K (2011) Effect of uncertainty in temperature and precipitation inputs and spatial resolution on the crop model. Hydrological Research Letters 5, 52–57.Google Scholar
Thaler, S, Eitzinger, J, Trnka, M and Dubrovsky, M (2012) Impacts of climate change and alternative adaptation options on winter wheat yield and water productivity in a dry climate in Central Europe. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 150, 537–555.Google Scholar
Thaler, S, Gobin, A and Eitzinger, J (2017) Water footprint of main crops in Austria. Die Bodenkultur 68, 1–15. doi: 10.1515/boku-2017-0001.Google Scholar
Topp, GC, Davis, JL and Annan, AP (1980) Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources Research 16, 574–582.Google Scholar
Trnka, M, Eitzinger, J, Gruszczynsk, G, Buchgraber, K, Resch, R and Schaumberger, A (2006) A simple statistical model for predicting herbage production from permanent grassland. Grass and Forage Science 61, 253–271.Google Scholar
Trnka, M, Kysely, J, Možny, M and Dubrovsky, M (2009) Changes in Central-European soil-moisture availability and circulation patterns in 1881–2005. International Journal of Climatology 29, 655–672.Google Scholar
Trnka, M, Kocmánková, E, Balek, J, Eitzinger, J, Ruget, F, Formayer, H, Hlavinka, P, Schaumberger, A, Horáková, V, Mozný, M and Zalud, Z (2010) Simple snow cover model for agrometeorological applications. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150, 1115–1127.Google Scholar
Trnka, M, Brázdil, R, Možný, M, Štěpánek, P, Dobrovolný, P, Zahradníček, P, Balek, J, Semerádová, D, Dubrovský, M, Hlavinka, P, Eitzinger, J, Wardlow, B, Svoboda, M, Hayes, M and Žalud, Z (2015 a) Soil moisture trends in the Czech Republic between 1961 and 2012. International Journal of Climatology 35, 3733–3747.Google Scholar
Trnka, M, Brázdil, R, Balek, J, Semeradova, D, Hlavinka, P, Možný, M, Štěpánek, P, Dobrovolný, P, Zahradníček, P, Dubrovsky, M, Eitzinger, J, Fuchs, B, Svoboda, M, Hayes, M and Žalud, Z (2015 b) Drivers of soil drying in the Czech Republic between 1961 and 2012. International Journal of Climatology 35, 2664–2675.Google Scholar
Wagner, W, Lemoine, G and Rott, H (1999) A method for estimating soil moisture from ERS scatterometer and soil data. Remote Sensing of Environment 70, 191–207.Google Scholar
Wagner, W, Hahn, S, Kidd, R, Melzer, T, Bartalis, Z, Hasenauer, S, Figa-Saldana, J, De Rosnay, P, Jann, A, Schneider, S, Komma, J, Kubu, G, Brugger, K, Aubrecht, C, Züger, J, Gangkofer, U, Kienberger, S, Brocca, L, Wang, Y, Blöschl, G, Eitzinger, J, Steinnocher, K, Zeil, P and Rubel, F (2013) The ASCAT soil moisture product: a review of its specifications, validation results, and emerging applications. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 22, 5–33.Google Scholar
White, JW, Hoogenboom, G, Kimball, BA and Wall, GW (2011) Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate change on crop production. Field Crops Research 124, 357–368.Google Scholar
Wilhite, DA (1993) The enigma of drought. In Wilhite, DA (ed.). Drought Assessment, Management, and Planning: Theory and Case Studies. Boston, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Williams, JR, Jones, CA and Dyke, PT (1984) A modeling approach to determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity. Transactions of the ASAE 27, 129–144.Google Scholar
Zadoks, JC, Chang, TT and Konzak, CF (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.Google Scholar
Zwieback, S, Scipal, K, Dorigo, W and Wagner, W (2012) Structural and statistical properties of the collocation technique for error characterization. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 19, 69–80.Google Scholar