PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF AQUACROP MODEL FOR CHICKPEA (Cicer arietinum L.) CROP IN SUB-HUMID REGION

J.M. GARHWAL¹*, S.R. BHAKAR², B.G. CHHIPA³, M. SINGH^4
1Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
²Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
³Department of Horticulture, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
⁴Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
* Corresponding Author : jhabarchoudharyctae@gmail.com

Received : 10-06-2023     Accepted : 28-07-2023     Published : 30-07-2023
Volume : 15     Issue : 7       Pages : 12492 - 12496
Int J Agr Sci 15.7 (2023):12492-12496

Keywords : AquaCrop, Biomass, Calibration, Canopy, Chickpea, Validation, Yield
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India and Department of Horticulture, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Field experiment was conducted at technology park of CTAE, Udaipur, Rajasthan to calibrate and validate AquaCrop model for chickpea crop during rabi season. The studied a factorial randomized block design (FRBD) with three replications to investigate the effects of different irrigation frequencies and mulching types on the crop. The irrigation frequencies included I1, a single irrigation at both the pre-sowing and flowering stages, and I2, a double irrigation at the pre-sowing, flowering, and pod-filling stages. The mulching types comprised M0, with no mulch (NM), M1 with black poly mulch (BPM), M2 with non-woven mulch (NWM), and M3 with biodegradable mulch. Part of the obtained field data i.e., data for full irrigation I1-single irrigation treatment under no-mulch – T1) was used for calibration of the model, while the remaining data of remaining treatments were used to validate the model. The observed and simulated canopy cover results show close match which was supported by high value of Nash Sutcliffe coefficient (R2NS) 0.908 with Coefficient of Residual Mass (CRM) having value as -0.100, which indicates that the model overestimates the canopy cover. R2NS values are found as 0.951 for biomass and 0.940 for yield which shows close match between observed and simulated biomass and yield, respectively. CRM was found as -0.160 and -0.210 for biomass and yield, respectively, which indicates that model overestimates the biomass and yield. AquaCrop model is considered a useful tool in predicting water productivity, biomass and yield under the prevailing condition and estimation of water requirement of crop was critically essential for crop planning on farm and, for designing and monitoring the irrigation project

1. Doorenbos J., Kassam A. H., and Bentvelsen C. I. M. (1979) Principles. Agron. J., 101(3), 426-437.
2. Araya A., Habtu S., Hadgu K. M., Kebede, A. and Dejene T. (2010) Agricultural Water Management, 97, 1838-1846.
3. Heng L. K., Hsiao T., Evett S., Howell T., and Steduto P. (2009) Agronomy Journal, 101, 488-498.
4. Stricevic R., Cosic M., Djurovic N., Pejic B. and Maksimovic L. (2011) Agricultural Water Management, 98, 161-162.
5. Abedinpour M., Sarangi A., Rajput T. B. S., Singh Man, Pathak H., Ahmad T. (2012) Agricultural Water Management, 110, 55-66.
6. Andarzian A., Bannayan M., Steduto P., Mazraeh H., Barati M.E., Barati M.A. and Rahnama A. (2011) Agricultural Water Management, 100, 1-8.
7. Steduto P., Hsiao T. C., Raes D., and Fereres E. (2009) Agronomy, J., 101(3), 426-437.
8. Raes D., Steduto P., Hsiao T. C. and Fereres E. (2009) Agronomy J., 101 (3), 438.
9. Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Raes D. and Smith M. (1998) Irrigation and Drain, Paper no. 56, FAO, Rome.
10. Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Smith M., Raes, D. and Wright J.L. (2005) Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering, 131, 2-13.
11. Bitri M. and Grazhdani S. (2015) International J Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, 4(6), 171-181.
12. Kaur A., Raturi H.C., Kachwaya D.S., Singh S.K. and Singh T. (2019) Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, SP1, 202-204.
13. Whisler F. D., Acock B., Baker D. N., Fye R. E., Hodges H. F., Lambert J. R., Lemmon H. E., Mc. Kinion J.M., and Reddy V. R. (1986) Adv. Agron., 40, 141-208.
14. Zhang W., Liu W., Xue Q., Chen J. and Han X. (2013) Journal of Water Science and Technology 684, 821-828
15. Yapo P. O., Gupta H. V., and Sorooshian S. (1998) Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 204, 83-97.
16. ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models of Watershed Management Committee, Irrigation and Drainage Division (1993) Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 119(3), 429-442.
17. Nash J. E., and Sutcliffe J. V. (1970) Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282-290.
18. Coulibaly P., Anctil F., and Bobee B. (2000) Journal of Hydrology, 230, 244-257.
19. Tayade B.D., Kothari M., Bhakar S.R., and Singh M., (2018) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7, 4770-4778.