The DOI matches its Crossref record.
EVALUATION OF THE EPIC MODEL FOR SIMULATING CROP YIELD AND IRRIGATION DEMAND
Abstract
An understanding of water needs in agriculture is a critical input in resolving the water resource issues that confrontmany southeastern states. Unfortunately, how much water is required and how much water is actually being used forirrigation in Georgia is primarily estimated and largely unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performanceof the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model in simulating crop yield and irrigation demand for three majorcrops in Georgia. Model evaluation is necessary to provide credibility in applying the model for simulating water use by agriculture.Seasonal yield and irrigation data for the 1990 through 2001 crop variety trials conducted at five agricultural experimentstations were used to evaluate simulation of yield and irrigation amount. The root mean squared deviation (RMSD) foryield was 0.29 t/ha for cotton, 0.39 t/ha for soybean, and 1.02 t/ha for peanut. The RMSD for peanut was large because themodel tended to underestimate high yields and was not as sensitive to the factors responsible for the year-to-year variabilityof peanut yield. The RMSD for total amount of irrigation was 75 mm for cotton, 83 mm for soybean, and 87 mm for peanut.The model simulated the mean irrigation amount and the magnitude of annual variability very well. The component of meansquared deviation (MSD = RMSD2) related to the pattern of annual variability in irrigation amount contributed most to MSD.Overall, the results showed that the EPIC…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thorp, K. R., Ale, S., Bange, M. P., Barnes, E. M., Hoogenboom, G., Lascano, R. J., McCarthy, A. C., Nair, S., Paz, J. O., Rajan, N., et al. (2014) · Journal of Cotton Science · doi:10.56454/oovc6073 · Cited by 96
Self-citationSimulating Field‐Scale Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics Using EPIC
Causarano, H. J., Shaw, J. N., Franzluebbers, A. J., Reeves, D. W., Raper, R. L., Balkcom, K. S., Norfleet, M. L., & Izaurralde, R. C. (2007) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2006.0356 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Guerra, L. C., Hoogenboom, G., Boken, V. K., Hook, J. E., Thomas, D. L., & Harrison, K. A.
- Venue
- Transactions of the ASAE
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2091-2100
- ISSN
- 0001-2351 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-0059
- OpenAlex
- W2048651675
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 4.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transactions of the ASAE (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Irrigation Practices and Water Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Climate change impacts on agriculture
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
- Keywords
- EPIC model, crop yield simulation, irrigation water demand, agricultural water use, cotton, soybean, groundnut, model evaluation, yield variability, Georgia agriculture, southeastern United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review