Comparing hydrological frameworks for simulating crop biomass, water and nitrogen dynamics in a tile drained soybean-corn system: Cascade vs computational approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biophysical agricultural models are needed for assessing science-based mitigation options to improve the efficiency and sustainability of agricultural cropping systems. It is crucial that they can accurately simulate soil hydrology and nutrient flows which strongly influence crop growth, biogeochemical processes and water quality. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the DeNitrification DeComposition model (DNDC), which utilizes simplified hydrologic processes, to a more comprehensive water flow model, the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2), to determine which processes are sufficient for simulating water and nitrogen dynamics and recommend improvements. Both models were calibrated and validated for simulating soil hydrology, nitrogen loss to tile drains and crop biomass using detailed observations from a corn (Zea mays L.) -soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) rotation in Iowa, with and without cover crops. DNDC performed adequately across a wide range of metrics in comparison to a more hydrologically complex model. Soybean and corn yield, and corn biomass over the growing season were well simulated by both models (NRMSE < 25%). Soybean yields were also very well simulated by both models (NRMSE < 20%); however, soybean biomass was over-predicted by RZWQM2 in the validation treatments. The magnitude of winter rye biomass and N uptake was well simulated but the timing of growth initiation in the spring was inaccurate at times. The annual and monthly estimation of tile flow and nitrogen loss to tiles drains were well simulated by both models; however, RZWQM2 performed better for simulating soil water content, and the dynamics of daily water flow to tile drains (DNDC: NSE −0.32 to 0.24; RZWQM2: NSE 0.35–0.69). DNDC overestimated soil water content near the soil surface and underestimated it in the deeper profile. We recommend that developments be carried out for DNDC to include improved root density and penetration functions, a heterogeneous and deeper soil profile, a fluctuating water table and mechanistic tile drainage. However, the inclusion of computationally intensive processes needs to be assessed in context to improved accuracy weighed against the model’s broad applicability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".