PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF AQUACROP MODEL FOR CUCUMBER (Cucumis sativus L.) CROP UNDER NATURALLY VENTILATED POLYHOUSE

J.M. GARHWAL¹*, S.R. BHAKAR², A. SHUKLA^3
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 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 : 06-06-2023     Accepted : 28-07-2023     Published : 30-07-2023
Volume : 15     Issue : 7       Pages : 12479 - 12483
Int J Agr Sci 15.7 (2023):12479-12483

Keywords : AquaCrop, Biomass, Calibration, Canopy, Cucumber, Validation, Yield
Academic Editor : S. B. Kalse, Dr Abhishek Naik, Dr A K Shrivastava
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
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

AquaCrop, an essential simulation model developed by the FAO, plays a pivotal role in achieving sustainable management of agricultural water resources by precisely forecasting crop yield in conditions of water scarcity. This study focused on adapting AquaCrop for cucumber cultivation within a naturally ventilated polyhouse, using a gravity-based drip irrigation system in Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. The calibration of the model was executed using data encompassing canopy cover, biomass, and cucumber yield from 2018 to 2020. The calibration phase showcased a strong coefficient of determination (R2NS) of 0.996 for canopy cover. Nonetheless, the model exhibited a tendency to overestimate both biomass and yield during the cultivation phase, displaying R2NS values of 0.85 and 0.915, respectively. The validation stage yield results that displayed a close alignment between actual and simulated values for both biomass and yield, demonstrating R2NS values of 0.89 and 0.93, respectively. Despite this close alignment, the model still leaned towards an overestimation, as indicated by negative CRM values of -0.226 and -0.210 for biomass and yield, respectively. Even though this overestimation aspect was present, the AquaCrop model stood as a dependable tool for projecting crop growth patterns and fine-tuning water management tactics. This research not only sheds light on the appropriateness of AquaCrop for cucumber cultivation within a specific agro-climatic setting but also contributes to the optimization of agricultural methodologies and water resource management within the region. The meticulously calibrated model parameters establish a valuable reference point for future simulations of cucumber crops in Udaipur. The universal applicability and robustness of AquaCrop elevate its significance as a potent instrument for elevating agricultural productivity and global water resource management

1. Stricevic R., Cosic M., Djurovic N., Pejic B. and Maksimovic L. (2011) Agricultural Water Management, 98, 161-162.
2. Abedinpour M., Sarangi A., Rajput T.B.S., Singh M., Pathak H., Ahmad T. (2012) Agricultural Water Management, 110, 55-66.
3. Andarzian A., Bannayan M., Steduto P., Mazraeh H., Barati M.E., Barati M.A. and Rahnama A. (2011) Agricultural Water Management, 100, 1-8.
4. Araya A., Habtu S., Hadgu K. M., Kebede, A. and Dejene T. (2010) Agricultural Water Management, 97, 1838-1846.
5. 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.
6. Coulibaly P., Anctil F. and Bobee B. (2000) Journal of Hydrology, 230, 244-257.
7. Heng L.K., Hsiao T., Evett S., Howell T. and Steduto P. (2009) Agronomy Journal, 101, 488-498.
8. Nash J. E., and Sutcliffe J. V. (1970) Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282-290.
9. Doorenbos J., Kassam A.H. and Bentvelsen C.I.M. (1979) Agron. J., 101(3), 426-437.
10. Steduto P., Hsiao T.C., Raes D. and Fereres E. (2009) Agronomy J., 101(3), 426-437.
11. Raes D., Steduto P., Hsiao T.C. and Fereres E. (2009) Agronomy J., 101 (3), 438.
12. Bitri M. and Grazhdani S. (2015) International J Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, 4(6), 171-181.