Abstract
The FAO-56 two-step approach (Kc-ETo) is commonly used to estimate crop evapotranspiration (ETc) for various crops and climate conditions. This approach consists of the product of a specific crop coefficient (Kc) and the grass-reference evapotranspiration (ETo). Crop coefficients were adjusted to regional climate conditions aiming at incorporating crop-specific impacts of relative humidity and wind speed on Kc in addition to climate impacts already represented in ETo. In the current study, crop water use and actual crop evapotranspiration and transpiration (ETc act and Tc act) were studied for four soybean maturity groups under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Field experiments were conducted in Southern Brazil along two seasons (2018/19 and 2019/20). Observations included measurements of the fraction of ground cover (fc), plant height (h), and soil water content (SWC) to calculate the soil water balance and estimate the soybean yields. Using the soil water balance model SIMDualKc with field collected data allowed estimating the actual and standard Kcb. The model adopts the dual Kc approach and was calibrated and validated using the field observations from, respectively, 2018/19 and 2019/20. Thus, the study provided for accurately estimating and partitioning soybean ETc act into soil evaporation and crop transpiration. Results of fitting observed SWC by model simulated data provided for a set of excellent goodness-of-fit indicators. Therefore, the actual Kcb estimated with SIMDualKc are assumed to have excellent accuracy for computing actual transpiration to be used for supporting soybean irrigation scheduling. This study allowed to evaluate the main water use and yield responses to water stress of diverse soybean maturity groups and to assess the impacts of related water management strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Abrahão GM, Costa MH (2018) Evolution of rain and photoperiod limitations on the soybean growing season in Brazil: the rise (and possible fall) of double-cropping systems. Agric Forest Meteorol 256:32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.02.031
Allen RG (1996) Assessing integrity of weather data for reference evapotranspiration estimation. J Irrig Drain Eng 122:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1996)122:2(97)
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO, Rome, p 300
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Smith M et al (2005) FAO-56 Dual crop coefficient method for estimating evaporation from soil and application extensions. J Irrig Drain Eng 131(1):2–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2005)131:1(2)
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Howell TA, Jensen ME (2011a) Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors governing measurement accuracy. Agric Water Manag 98:899–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.015
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Howell TA, Jensen ME (2011) Evapotranspiration information reporting: II. Recommended documentation. Agric Water Manag 98:899–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.016
Alliprandini LFLFC, Abatti CPF, Bertagnolli PF et al (2009) Steckling. Understanding soybean maturity groups in Brazil: environment, cultivar classification, and stability. Crop Sci 49:801–808. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.07.0390
Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC et al (2013) Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Z 22:711–728. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507
Anapalli SS, Fischer D, Reddy KN et al (2018) Quantifying soybean evapotranspiration using an eddy covariance approach. Agric Water Manag 209:228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.07.023
Anapalli SS, Pinnamaneni SR, Reddy KN et al (2022) Investigating soybean (Glycine max L.) responses to irrigation on a large-scale farm in the humid climate of the Mississippi Delta region. Agric Water Manage 262:107432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107432
Anda A, Soos G, Menyhárt L et al (2020) Yield features of two soybean varieties under different water supplies and field conditions. Field Crop Res 245:107673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107673
Bariviera G, Dallacort R, Freitas PSL et al (2020) Dual crop coefficient for the early-cycle soybean cultivar SoyTech 815 RR. Rev Bras Eng Agríc Amb 24:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v24n2p75-81
Barker JB, Neale CMU, Heeren DM, Suyker AE (2018) Evaluation of a hybrid reflectance-based crop coefficient and energy balance evapotranspiration model for irrigation management. Trans ASABE 61(2):533–548. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12311
Bastidas AM, Setiyono TD, Dobermann A et al (2008) Soybean sowing date: the vegetative, reproductive, and agronomic impacts. Crop Sci 48:727–740. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.05.0292
Bateman NR, Catchot AL, Gore J et al (2020) Effects of planting date for soybean growth, development, and yield in the southern USA. Agron (basel) 10(4):596. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040596
Battisti R, Sentelhas PC (2017) Improvement of soybean resilience to drought through deep root system in Brazil. Agron J 109:1612–1622. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.01.0023
Battisti R, Sentelhas PC, Pascoalino JAL et al (2018) Soybean yield gap in the areas of yield contest in Brazil. Int J Plant Prod 12:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42106-018-0016-0
Boote KJ, Jones JW, Batchelor WD et al (2003) Genetic coefficients in the CROPGRO-soybean model: link to field performance and genomics. Agron J 95:32–51. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2003.3200
Boyer JS (1982) Plant productivity and environment. Science 218:443–448. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.218.4571.44
Braga P, Crusiol LGT, Nanni MR et al (2021) Vegetation indices and NIR-SWIR spectral bands as a phenotyping tool for water status determination in soybean. Precis Agric 22:249–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09740-4
Carlesso R, Petry M, Trois C (2009) The Use of a Meteorological Station Network to Provide Crop Water Requirement Information for Irrigation Management. In: Li D, Zhao C (eds) Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture II, CCTA 2008. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 1. Springer, Boston, p 293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0209-2_3
Cera JC, Streck NA, Yang H et al (2017) Extending the evaluation of the SoySim model to soybean cultivars with high maturation groups. Field Crop Res 201:162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.11.006
Chen GH, Nelson RL (2006) Variation in early plant height in wild soybean. Crop Sci 46:865–869. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.07-0202
CONAB (2022a) Brazilian Crop Assessment–Grain, 2021/2022a Crops, Sixth Inventory Survey, October/2022a. 2022. https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos. Accessed 25 Oct 2022
CONAB (2022b) Historical series of area and production cultivated by States of the federation (In Portuguese.) http://ww.conab.gov.br/. Accessed 10 Sep 2022b
Crusiol LGT, Nanni MR, Furlanetto RH et al (2021) Yield prediction in soybean crop grown under different levels of water availability using reflectance spectroscopy and partial least squares regression. Remote Sens 13:977. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050977
Di Mauro G, Cipriotti PA, Gallo S, Rotundo JL (2018) Environmental and management variables explain soybean yield gap variability in Central Argentina. Eur J Agron 99:186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.04.012
Doorenbos J, Kassam AH (1979) Yield response to water. FAO Irrig Drain. Paper 33. FAO, Rome
Ergo VV, Lascano R, Vega CRC et al (2018) Heat and water stressed field-grown soybean: a multivariate study on the relationship between physiological-biochemical traits and yield. Environ Exp Bot 148:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.12.023
FAOSTAT (2021) Database-agricultural production (FAO). http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed 10 Oct 2022
Fehr W, Caviness C (1977) Stages of soybean development. Iowa State University Digital Repository, Special Report 87, Ames, Iowa. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/83024475.pdf. Accessed 06 Aug 2022
Gajić B, Kresović B, Tapanarova A et al (2018) Effect of irrigation regime on yield, harvest index and water productivity of soybean grown under different precipitation conditions in a temperate environment. Agric Water Manag 210:224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.08.002
Garcia y Garcia A, Persson T, Guerra LC, Hoogenboom G (2010) Response of soybean genotypes to different irrigation regimes in a humid region of the southeastern USA. Agric Water Manag 97:981–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.01.030
Giménez L, Paredes P, Pereira LS (2017) Water use and yield of soybean under various irrigation regimes and severe water stress. Application of AquaCrop and SIMDualKc models. Water 9:993. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060393
Gonzalez-Dugo MP, Neale CMU, Mateos L et al (2009) A comparison of operational remote sensing-based models for estimating crop evapotranspiration. Agric For Meteorol 149:1843–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.06.012
Gorthi A, Volenec J, Welp LR (2019) Stomatal response in soybean during drought improves leaf-scale and fieldscale water use efficiencies. Agr For Meteorol 276–277:107629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107629
Hu M, Wiatrak P (2012) Effect of planting date on soybean growth, yield, and grain quality. Review Agron J 104:785–790. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0382
Irmak S (2017) Evapotranspiration basics and estimating actual crop evapotranspiration from reference evapotranspiration and crop-specific coefficients. Crop Irrig Eng Nebraska Extension. http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1994.pdf.
Irmak S, Odhiambo L, Specht JE et al (2013) Hourly and daily single and basal evapotranspiration crop coefficients as a function of growing degree days, days after emergence, leaf area index, fractional green canopy cover, and plant phenology for soybean. Trans ASABE 56:1785–1803. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.56.10219.org/
Jovanovic N, Pereira LS, Paredes P et al (2020) A review of strategies, methods and technologies to reduce non-beneficial consumptive water use on farms considering the FAO56 methods. Agric Water Manag 239:106267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106267
Kamble B, Kilic A, Hubbard K (2013) Estimating crop coefficients using remote sensing-based vegetation index. Remote Sen 5:1588–1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5041588
Karam F, Maasad R, Sfeir T et al (2005) Evapotranspiration and seed yield of field grown soybean under deficit irrigation conditions. Agric Water Manag 75:226–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2004.12.015
Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C et al (2006) World Map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Z 15:259–263. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130
Kukal M, Irmak S (2016) Long-term patterns of air temperatures, daily temperature range, precipitation, grass-reference evapotranspiration and aridity index in the USA Great Plains: Part II. Temporal trends. J Hydrol 542:953–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.06.008
Kukal MS, Irmak S (2019) Comparative canopy growth dynamics in four row crops and their relationships with allometric and environmental determinants. Agron J 111(4):1799–1816. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.01.0017
Liu Y, Pereira LS, Fernando RM (2006) Fluxes through the bottom boundary of the root zone in silty soils: parametric approaches to estimate groundwater contribution and percolation. Agric Water Manag 84:27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.01.018
Liu M, Shi H, Paredes P, Ramos et al (2022) Estimating and partitioning maize evapotranspiration as affected by salinity using weighing lysimeters and the SIMDualKc model. Agric Water Manag 261:107362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107362
Mannering JV, Meyer LD (1963) The effect of various rates of surface mulch an infiltration and erosion. Soil Sci Soc Am Pro 27:84–86. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1963.03615995002700010029x
Martins JD, Rodrigues GC, Paredes P et al (2013) Dual crop coefficients for maize in southern Brazil: model testing for sprinkler and drip irrigation and mulched soil. Biosyst Eng 115:291–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2013.03.016
Mbangiwa NC, Savage MJ, Mabhaudhi T (2019) Modelling and measurement of water productivity and total evaporation in a dryland soybean crop. Agr Forest Meteorol 266–267:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.12.005
McMaster GS, Wilhelm WW (1997) Growing degree-days: one equation, two interpretations. Agr Forest Meteorol 87:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(97)00027-0
Michelon CJ, Carlesso R, Oliveira ZBD et al (2010) Pedotransfer functions to estimate the water retention in some soils of Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil. Cienc Rural 40:848–853. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782010005000055. (In Portuguese, with abstract in English)
Montoya F, García C, Pintos F, Otero A (2017) Effects of irrigation regime on the growth and yield of irrigated soybean in temperate humid climatic conditions. Agric Water Manag 193:30–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.08.001
Moreira VS, Roberti DR, Minella JP et al (2015) Seasonality of soil water exchange in the soybean growing season in southern Brazil. Sci Agric 72:103–113. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2014-0056
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW et al (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50:885–900. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153)@2007
Morris TC, Vann RA, Heitman J et al (2021) Maximizing soybean yield by understanding planting date, maturity group, and seeding rate interactions in North Carolina. Crop Sci 61:4365–4382. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20603
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. 1. A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
Odhiambo LO, Irmak S (2012) Evaluation of the impact of surface residue cover on single and dual crop coefficient for estimating soybean actual evapotranspiration. AgricAgr Water Manag 104:221–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.12.021
Paredes P, Rodrigues GJ, Petry MT et al (2018) Evapotranspiration partition and crop coefficients of Tifton 85 bermudagrass as affected by the frequency of cuttings. Application of the dual Kc approach. Water 10:558. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050558
Payero J, Melvin S, Irmak S (2005) Response of soybean to deficit irrigation in the semi-arid environment of west-central Nebraska. Trans ASAE 48:2189–2203. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.2010510.13031/2013.20105
Pereira LS (2017) Water, agriculture and food: challenges and issues. Water Resour Manage 31:2985–2999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1664-z
Pereira LS, Cordery I, Iavocides I (2012) Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agric Water Manag 108:39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.022
Pereira LS, Allen RG, Smith M, Raes D (2015a) Crop evapotranspiration estimation with FAO56: past and future. Agric Water Manag 147:4–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.031
Pereira LS, Paredes P, Rodrigues GC et al (2015b) Modeling barley water use and evapotranspiration partitioning in two contrasting rainfall years. Assessing SIMDualKc and AquaCrop models. Agric Water Manag 159:239–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.06.006
Pereira LS, Paredes P, Jovanovic N (2020a) Soil water balance models for determining crop water and irrigation requirements and irrigation scheduling focusing on the FAO56 method and the dual Kc approach. Agric Water Manag 241:106357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106357
Pereira LS, Paredes P, Melton F et al (2020b) Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height. Background and validation using ground and remote sensing data. Agric Water Manag 241:106197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106197
Pereira LS, Paredes P, Hunsaker DJ et al (2021) Standard single and basal crop coefficients for field crops. Updates and advances to the FAO56 crop water requirements method. Agric Water Manag 243:106466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106466
Raper CD, Kramer P (1987) Stress physiology. In: Wilcox JR (ed) Soybeans: improvement, production, and uses, 2nd edn. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, pp 589–641
Rosa RD, Paredes P, Rodrigues GC et al (2012) Implementing the dual crop coefficient approach in interactive software. 1. Background and computational strategy. Agric Water Manag 103:8–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.10.013
Rosa R, Ramos T, Pereira LS (2016) The dual Kc approach to assess maize and sweet sorghum transpiration and soil evaporation under saline conditions: application of the SIMDualKc model. Agric Water Manag 177:77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.06.028
Sentelhas PC, Battisti R, Camara GMS et al (2015) The soybean yield gap in Brazil—magnitude, causes and possible solution. J Agric Sci 158:1394–1411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859615000313
Setiyono TD, Cassman KG, Specht JE et al (2010) Simulation of soybean growth and yield in near-optimal growth conditions. Field Crop Res 119:161–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.07.007
Silva EHFM, Antolin LAS, Zanon AJ et al (2021) Impact assessment of soybean yield and water productivity in Brazil due to climate change. Eur J Agron 129:126329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126329
Sinclair TR, Neumaier N, Farias JRB et al (2005) Comparison of vegetative development in soybean cultivars for low-latitude environments. Field Crop Res 92:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.08.008
Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy. Washington, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 12th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC
Tagliapietra EL, Streck NA, da Rocha TSM et al (2018) Optimum leaf area index to reach soybean yield potential in subtropical environment. Agron J 110:932–938. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.09.0523
Tagliapietra EL, Zanon AJ, Streck NA et al (2021) Biophysical and management factors causing yield gap in soybean in the subtropics of Brazil. Agron J 113:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20586
Thomas JF, Raper CD (1983) Photoperiod and temperature regulation of floral initiation and anthesis in soya bean. Ann Bot 51:481–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a086493
Umburanas RC, Kawakami J, Ainsworth EA et al (2022) Changes in soybean cultivars released over the past 50 years in southern Brazil. Sci Rep 12(508):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04043-8
Veeck GP, Dalmago GA, Bremm T et al (2022) CO2 flux in a wheat-soybean succession in subtropical Brazil: a carbon sink. J Environ Qual 51:899–915. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20362
Vitantonio-Mazzini LN, Gómez D, Gambin BL et al (2020) Sowing date, genotype choice, and water environment control soybean yields in central Argentina. Crop Sci 61:715–728. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20315
Wei Z, Paredes P, Liu Y et al (2015) Modelling transpiration, soil evaporation and yield prediction of soybean in North China Plain. Agric Water Manag 147:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.05.004
Yang Q, Lin G, Lv H et al (2021) Environmental and genetic regulation of plant height in soybean. BMC Plant Biol 21:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-021-02836-7
Zanon AJ, Streck NA, Grassini P (2016a) Climate and management factors influence soybean yield potential in a subtropical environment. Agron J 108:1447–1454. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0535
Zanon AJ, Streck NA, da Rocha TSM et al (2016b) Growth habit effect on development of modern soybean cultivars after beginning of bloom in Rio Grande do Sul. Bragantia 75:446–458. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.535
Zdziarski AD, Todeschini MH, Milioli AS et al (2018) Soybean maturity groups to increase grain yield in Brazil. Crop Sci 58:1155–1165. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2017.09.0581
Zhang LX, Kyei-Boahen S, Zhang J et al (2007) Modifications of optimum adaptation zones for soybean maturity groups in the USA. Crop Manag 6(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1094/CM-2007-0927-01-RS
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Department of Rural Engineering, Center of Rural Sciences, Federal University of Santa Maria, and the FATEC—Fundação para o Apoio à Tecnologia e Ciência, maintainer of the research and extension projects coordinated by the first author. The support of FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the project LEAF—Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Research (UIDB/04129/2020) and through the grant attributed to P. Paredes (DL57/2016/CP1382/CT0022) is acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MTP, and JDM: conceptualization and methodology; TFM, CMF and GAH: field work and data collection; MTP and TFM: data analysis, modeling, calibration, and validation, MTP, PP; and LSP: formal analysis, writing, review and editing, project administration, and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Petry, M.T., Magalhães, T.F., Paredes, P. et al. Water use and crop coefficients of soybean cultivars of diverse maturity groups and assessment of related water management strategies. Irrig Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-023-00871-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-023-00871-w