Preprints
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4974019
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4974019
21 Oct 2024
 | 21 Oct 2024
Status: this preprint is open for discussion.

Modeling irrigation and land surface dynamics: comparing AquaCrop and Noah-MP over the Po Valley

Louise Busschaert, Michel Bechtold, Sara Modanesi, Christian Massari, Dirk Raes, Sujay V. Kumar, and Gabrielle J. M. De Lannoy

Abstract. In this study, irrigation was estimated over the Po Valley (Italy) at a 1-km2 spatial resolution using (i) a crop model, AquaCrop, and (ii) a land surface model, Noah-MP. Both models were run with sprinkler irrigation using a similar setup within NASA's Land Information System. Irrigation estimates were evaluated at the pixel and basin scale, using in situ and satellite-based reference data. In addition, surface soil moisture (SSM), vegetation, and evapotranspiration (ET) estimates were compared with satellite retrievals.

Noah-MP shows on average higher annual irrigation rates (434 mm yr-1) compared to AquaCrop (268 mm yr-1), mainly because more irrigation water losses (not consumed by transpiration) are simulated and compensated for in Noah-MP (runoff, interception, and soil evaporative losses), whereas AquaCrop only accounts for soil evaporative losses. When taking into account representative application water losses for AquaCrop, and conveyance water losses for both models, the irrigation estimates fall within reported ranges of 500–600 mm yr-1. For the field-based evaluation, Noah-MP presents large irrigation events (> 100 mm per event) and less interannual variability compared to AquaCrop. Two-week averaged SSM estimates from both models agree well with downscaled estimates from the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission, with spatially averaged unbiased root mean square differences of 0.05 and 0.04 m3 m-3 for AquaCrop and Noah-MP, respectively. Both models show limitations in terms of vegetation and ET modeling, mainly due to the generalization of vegetation parameters for AquaCrop and a possible sub-optimal vegetation parametrization for Noah-MP. The results of this study highlight the differences between the models which have been created for distinct original purposes and scales, as well as the complexity of irrigation modeling due to its anthropogenic nature, emphasizing the need for observations.

Louise Busschaert, Michel Bechtold, Sara Modanesi, Christian Massari, Dirk Raes, Sujay V. Kumar, and Gabrielle J. M. De Lannoy

Status: open (until 16 Dec 2024)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3205', Nima Zafarmomen, 06 Nov 2024 reply
Louise Busschaert, Michel Bechtold, Sara Modanesi, Christian Massari, Dirk Raes, Sujay V. Kumar, and Gabrielle J. M. De Lannoy
Louise Busschaert, Michel Bechtold, Sara Modanesi, Christian Massari, Dirk Raes, Sujay V. Kumar, and Gabrielle J. M. De Lannoy

Viewed

Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.

Total article views: 75 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
75 0 0 75 0 0
  • HTML: 75
  • PDF: 0
  • XML: 0
  • Total: 75
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Oct 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Oct 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.

Total article views: 70 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 70 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 08 Nov 2024
Download
Short summary
This study estimates irrigation in the Po Valley using AquaCrop and Noah-MP models with sprinkler irrigation. Noah-MP shows higher annual rates than AquaCrop due to more water losses. After adjusting, both align with reported irrigation ranges (500–600 mm/yr). Soil moisture estimates from both models match satellite data, though both have limitations in vegetation and evapotranspiration modeling. The study emphasizes the need for observations to improve irrigation estimates.