agronomy

Article
Performance of AquaCrop Model for Maize Growth
Simulation under Different Soil Conditioners in Shandong
Coastal Area, China
Yuyang Shan 1 , Ge Li 1 , Lijun Su 1, * , Jihong Zhang 2,3, *, Quanjiu Wang 1 , Junhu Wu 1 , Weiyi Mu 1 and Yan Sun 1

1 State Key Laboratory of Eco-Hydraulics in Northwest Arid Region of China, Xi’an University of Technology,
Xi’an 710048, China; [email protected] (Y.S.); [email protected] (G.L.); [email protected] (Q.W.);
[email protected] (J.W.); [email protected] (W.M.); [email protected] (Y.S.)
2 College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
3 Key Laboratory of Modern Water-Saving Irrigation of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps,
Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (L.S.); [email protected] (J.Z.)

Abstract: Evaluating the performance of AquaCrop models under the drip irrigation of maize with
soil conditioners is of great significance for improving coastal saline–alkali land crop management
strategies. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of an AquaCrop model for maize growth
simulation under different soil conditions (humic acid (HA) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose
(CMC)) and dosages and different levels of irrigation in the Shandong coastal saline–alkali area,
China, and to optimize the amount of irrigation. Three years of experiments were carried out in
the growing season of maize (Ludan 510) in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The dosages of HA were 5, 15,
25, and 35 g/m2 , the dosages of CMC were 1, 2, 3, and 5 g/m2 , and the levels of irrigation from
2019 to 2021 were all 120 mm. The model was calibrated with data from 2019, and the model was
verified with data from 2020 to 2021, according to the recommended corn parameters in the AquaCrop
Citation: Shan, Y.; Li, G.; Su, L.; model manual. The results showed that the model had a good simulation effect on canopy coverage,
Zhang, J.; Wang, Q.; Wu, J.; Mu, W.;
with a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of less than 15.2%, and the simulated aboveground biomass
Sun, Y. Performance of AquaCrop
and yield were generally low. The simulated value of soil water content was generally high, with
Model for Maize Growth Simulation
some treatments having errors of more than 15.0%. The simulation effect of irrigated maize from
under Different Soil Conditioners in
2019 to 2020 was better than maize in 2021. The simulation effect of HA was better than that of
Shandong Coastal Area, China.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541. https://
CMC, while the simulation effect of a low-gradient modifier was better than that of high-gradient
doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071541 conditioner when compared with CMC. In conclusion, the AquaCrop model could be a viable method
for predicting maize development under different soil conditioners in this area. The suitable levels
Academic Editor: Camilla Dibari
of irrigation under HA and CMC treatments were 47.0–65.9 mm and 61.0–92.4 mm, respectively,
Received: 25 May 2022 according to the principle of high yield and water use efficiency. The results provided a reference
Accepted: 27 June 2022 for optimizing the drip irrigation of maize under the application of soil conditioners in coastal
Published: 28 June 2022 saline–alkali areas.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in Keywords: AquaCrop model; maize; humic acid; sodium carboxymethyl cellulose; levels of irrigation
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

1. Introduction
About 20% of the world’s agricultural land is irrigated, producing 45% of the food
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
supply. Salt-affected soils account for more than 20% of the global irrigated area. In some
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
countries, salt-affected soils are spread over more than half of the irrigated land [1]. It is
This article is an open access article
becoming increasingly difficult for humans to maintain their fundamental survival needs
distributed under the terms and
as the demand for farmed land resources grows [2,3]. Maize is one of the three major food
conditions of the Creative Commons
crops in China, and it is also the main food crop in the Yellow River Delta [4]. The study of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the reasonable degrees of irrigation for maize is critical for improving crop productivity,
4.0/).
water conservation, water usage efficiency, soil water, and the salt environment.

Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071541 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 2 of 17

Dongying City, Shandong Province, is located in the Yellow River Delta of China.
Due to the particularity of the geographical location and the concentrated distribution of
rainfall from July to August each year, soil salinization is particularly serious, forming a
typical coastal saline–alkali land [5]. The natural geology of coastal saline–alkali land is
complicated, with high groundwater salinity and shallow groundwater levels. Conven-
tional improvement measures, such as traditional engineering, chemical improvement,
and biological improvement, may have an adverse effect on the long-term use of coastal
saline–alkali land [6–10]. Water and salt stress can inhibit maize root growth and reduce
yield [11]. HA has been demonstrated in studies to improve soil structure, reduce salinity,
and increase soil organic matter content, all of which can help crops develop and yield
more successfully [12–19]. CMC is a water-soluble polymer that can improve soil shear
strength and anti-erosion, improve soil structure and water-holding capacity, limit soil
water infiltration, inhibit soil evaporation, and boost crop growth [20–26].
Crop growth models are computer-assisted dynamic simulations of crop growth
and yield production, as well as crop reactions to environmental changes in the crop–
soil–atmosphere systems [27]. Many crop models, such as CROPWAT [28], DSSAT [29],
WOFOST [30], STICS [31], MOMOS [32], and Crop-Syst [33], have been established after
extensive research based on various crop and driving principles. Simulations of crop
development and growth parameters are based on complex interactions between climate
variables, crops, soil parameters, and management practices. Most models necessitate
extremely specific crop growth input data and statistics, and some models cannot be used
in certain locations. Among these models, the AquaCrop model is a water-driven tool
created and introduced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to
simulate crop water productivity. It can be widely used in space and time by standardizing
the water productivity parameters of the climate (including evaporation and atmospheric
CO2 concentration) [34]. In comparison with existing simulation models (such as DSSAT
and WOFOST), the AquaCrop model features fewer input parameters, a broader application
range, a simpler interface, good intuition, and high precision [35]. The model simulates
crop yield using crop canopy coverage and harvest index under various management
measures and irrigation modes [36], and then calculates crop water use efficiency to assess
crop yield responses to water and determine the crop water response mechanism under
various irrigation conditions [37]. Abedinpour et al. (2012) simulated maize in a semi-arid
environment in India using the AquaCrop model, and found that it performed best for full
irrigation and 25% deficit irrigation with normal N fertilizer [38]. Due to the short extension
time of the AquaCrop model, there are relatively few studies on the applicability evaluation
of the model in coastal saline–alkali land areas, especially studies of drip irrigation maize
under the modifier conditions; elucidating the reasonable degree of irrigation is of great
importance to saline–alkali land improvement and water-saving irrigation.
The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of different irrigation quotas,
different soil conditions, and application rates on canopy coverage, aboveground biomass,
soil water content, and yield using 3-year field experiment data. The performance of
the AquaCrop model in the simulation of maize growth in coastal saline–alkali land in
Shandong Province, China, was evaluated to determine the applicability of the aquatic crop
model in coastal saline–alkali land and provide reasonable levels of irrigation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Description
The experimental site was between the high-tech demonstration base of Nonggao
District, Guangrao County, Dongying City (37◦ 210 N, 118◦ 570 E, altitude 10 m), which is
located in the Yellow River Delta in the north of Shandong Province, China, with a monsoon
climate. The average sunshine duration is 2234 h per year, and the average precipitation
over the year is 587.4 mm. The rainfall is mostly concentrated from June to September
every year. The average temperature over the years is 12.3 °C, the annual average frost-free
period is 198 days, and the buried depth of groundwater level was about 1 m in 2019–2021.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 3 of 17

The physical properties of the soil are shown in Table 1. The soil in the experimental field
was mainly sandy loam, with a soil bulk density of 1.45, saturated water content of 0.48,
and field water-holding capacity of 0.15.

Table 1. Physical properties of soil.

Soil Depth Clay Silt Sand BD SAT FC

Soil Texture
cm % % % g/cm3 cm3 /cm3 cm3 /cm3
0–10 3.39 24.48 72.13 Sandy loam soil 1.40 0.46 0.16
10–20 2.18 18.37 79.45 Sandy loam soil 1.44 0.44 0.16
20–40 2.94 21.80 75.26 Sandy loam soil 1.43 0.45 0.15
40–60 6.73 55.41 37.86 Silt loam soil 1.48 0.53 0.15
60–80 7.64 50.92 41.44 Silt loam soil 1.46 0.53 0.14
BD is the soil bulk density, SAT is the soil volumetric saturated water content, and FC is the field capacity.

2.2. Experimental Design

The maize field experiment was conducted in the experimental station from 2019 to 2021,
and it was developed using a single-factor, fully random experiment. The tested maize
variety was “Jinan 30”, the experimental plot area was approximately 2.5 × 4 = 10 m2 , and
the total experiment design area was 270 m2 . Maize was planted in wide and narrow rows,
with an 80 cm wide row spacing and a 40 cm narrow row spacing. The drip irrigation belt
was laid in one pipe and two rows, with a dripper spacing of 30 cm, a dripper flow of 2 L/h,
and a planting density of 25 × 60 cm. The field management mode was consistent with the
local farmland management mode, such as fertilization and pesticides. The HA used in the
experiment was produced by Xi’an Tianben Agricultural Chemistry Co., Ltd., Xi’an, China,
and CMC was produced by Shandong Chemical Industry, China. The growth period of
the maize in the test was about 125 d. The detailed pilot programs from 2019 to 2021 are
detailed in Table 2. Four levels of humic acid (HA) dosages were set: 5 g/m2 (H1), 15 g/m2
(H2), 25 g/m2 (H3), and 35 g/m2 (H4). Four levels of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose
(CMC) dosages were set: 1 g/m2 (C1), 2 g/m2 (C2), 3 g/m2 (C3), and 5 g/m2 (C4). The
levels of irrigation of the maize in 2019, 2020, and 2021 were all 120 mm, which was full
irrigation, in accordance with local experience [7].

Table 2. Crop parameters of the AquaCrop model.

Symbol Description Value Unit Remarks

Basic parameters of maize crops
CC0 Initial canopy cover 1.50 % Measured
CGC Canopy growth coefficient 15.4 % day−1 Calibrated
CCx Maximum canopy cover 90 % Measured
CDC Canopy decline coefficient 11.0 % day−1 Calibrated
Time from sowing to emergence 7 – Measured
Time from sowing to maximum canopy coverage 50 – Measured
Time from sowing to senescence 82 days Measured
Growth cycle
Time from sowing to maturity 105 days Measured
Time from sowing to flowering 80 days Measured
Flowering cycle 14 days Measured
Zm Maximum effective rooting depth 1.0 m Measured
– Time from sowing to maximum root depth 78 – Measured
HI0 Reference harvest index 36 % Calibrated
WP* Water productivity normalized for ETo and CO2 18 g m−2 Calibrated
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 4 of 17

Table 2. Cont.

Symbol Description Value Unit Remarks

Parameters of water-stress response
Pexp,upper Fraction of TAW at which canopy expansion is limited 0.25 – Calibrated
Pexp,lower Fraction of TAW at which canopy expansion stops 0.55 – Calibrated
Pclo ,upper Effect of water stress on stomatal conductance 0.20 – Calibrated
Pclo,lower Water stress had the least effect on stomatal conductance 0.50 – Calibrated
Psen,upper Effect of water stress on early canopy senescence 0.55 – Calibrated
Parameters of salinity-stress response
ECen ECe at which crop starts to be affected 1 dS m−1 Calibrated
ECem ECe at which crop can no longer grow 15 dS m−1 Calibrated
Tbase Substrate temperature 10 ◦C Calibrated
Tupper Upper limit temperature 30 ◦C Calibrated
In the “Remarks” column, “Calibrated” indicates that the values were calibrated using the 2019 measured data,
whereas “Measured” indicates measured data.

2.3. Observation Items and Methods

2.3.1. Meteorological Data
Meteorological data from maize sowing to maturity in 2019–2021 mainly included solar
radiation, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, wind speed, relative humidity,
and rainfall. The rainfall and reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) during the maize
growth period in 2019–2021 are shown in Figure 1, and the average rainfall values for each
year were 440 mm, 528 mm, and 383 mm, respectively. After sowing, 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80,
100, and 120 became 00, 10, 15, 34, 53, 63, 79, and 89 growth stages of maize (BBCH scale),
respectively.

2.3.2. Soil Water and Salt Content

The soil samples were taken after the sowing stage, seedling stage, heading stage,
flowering stage, and graining stage, as well as harvest. The sampling depths of the
soil samples were 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 cm, respectively, which were
repeated three times. The drying method (105 ± 2 °C) was used to determine the soil
water content. The soil salt content was measured with a DDS-307A conductivity meter
(Shanghai Instrument & Electrical Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd., China). The conductivity
of the soil saturated extract (ECe ) was estimated through the conductivity of the soil–water
ratio of 1:5 (EC1:5 ) [39].

ECe = (2.46 + 3.03/θsp ) EC1:5 (n = 344, r2 = 0.993) (1)

where θsp is the gravimetric water content of saturated paste (g/g). At our experimental
site, the values of θsp were 0.42 and 0.40 for sandy loam soil and silt loam soil, respectively.

2.3.3. Canopy Cover

Six representative plants with uniform growth were selected in the experimental plot
(three plants in the inner row and three plants in the outer row). The leaf areas of maize
were measured manually in stages at 51 days, 70 days, 80 days, 93 days, and 105 days from
sowing. The calculation formula of the green leaf area index is as follows [40]:

∑m n
j=1 ∑i =1 Lij Bij
LAI = 0.75ρ (2)
m
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 5 of 17

where
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW LAI is the leaf area index, ρ is the plant density, m is the number of plants, n is5 of
the18
number of leaves per plant, Lij is the maximum blade length, and Bij is the maximum blade
width.

12
(a) 2019 Tmax Tmin Rainfall ETo 240
40

Rainfall (mm)
180

ETo (mm)
30 8
T (℃)

20 120
4
10 60

0 0 0
240 12
40 (b) 2020

Rainfall (mm)
180
30 8

ETo (mm)
T (℃)

20 120
4
10 60

0 0 0
(c) 2021 240 12
40

Rainfall (mm)
180

ETo (mm)
30 8
T (℃)

20 120
4
10 60

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d)
Figure 1. Meteorological data during the growth period of maize in 2019–2021. Tmax and Tmin are
Figure 1. Meteorological data during the growth period of maize in 2019–2021. Tmax and Tmin are
the maximum and minimum air temperature, respectively. (a) 2019, (b) 2020, (c) 2021
the maximum and minimum air temperature, respectively.
2.3.2.The
Soilcanopy
Water coverage
and Salt Content
(CC) can be calculated using the LAI [41].
The soil samples were taken after the sowing stage, seedling stage, heading stage,
0.6LAI 1.2The sampling depths of the soil
flowering stage, and graining CC stage, as well
= 1.005 (1 −ase−harvest. ) (3)
samples were 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 cm, respectively, which were repeated
2.3.4.
three Aboveground
times. The dryingBiomass
method and(105
Yield± 2 ℃) was used to determine the soil water content.
The Atsoildifferent
salt content wasstages,
growth measured with aand
the stems DDS-307A
leaves ofconductivity
maize in themeter (Shanghai
selected In-
area were
killed at 105
strument & ◦Electrical
C for 30 min, and dried
Scientific at 75 ◦ CCo.,
Instrument for Ltd.,
48 h to constant
China). Theweight, and then
conductivity of the
the dry
soil
weight
saturatedof the maize
extract stem
(EC e) wasand leaf was through
estimated weighedthe to calculate the dry
conductivity matter
of the accumulation.
soil–water ratio of
After the maize
1:5 (EC1:5) [39]. had matured, 10 typical plants were selected from each plot to measure
the ear weight and calculate the final yield. The AquaCrop model decomposes evapotran-
ECe  (2.46  3.03
spiration (ETc ) into transpiration sp )EC
(Tr ) /and evaporation
1：
5
(n (E), r 2 establishes
344,and 0.993) a functional(1)
relationship between CC and reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo). The aboveground
where (B)
biomass sp is
wastheestimated
gravimetricusingwater contentTrofand
calculated saturated
standard paste
crop(g/g).
waterAt our experimental
productivity (WP*);
site, the values of  were 0.42 and 0.40 for sandy loam soil and silt loam soil, respec-
then, B was converted
sp
to the final yield (Y) [41].
tively. Tr = CC ∗ KcTr,x ET0 (4)

2.3.3. Canopy Cover E = Kr (1 − CC ∗ )Kex ET0 (5)

Six representative plants with uniform growth were selected in the experimental plot
(three plants in the inner row and three plants in the outer row). The leaf areas of maize
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 6 of 17

Tr
B = WP × ( ) (6)
ET0
Y = f H I H I0 B (7)
where CC* is the canopy coverage adjusted by micro advection effect (%), KcTr,x is the
maximum standard crop transpiration coefficient, Kr is the evaporation reduction coefficient
used to adjust the impact of insufficient surface water, Kex is the maximum soil evaporation
coefficient, fHI is a regulator of water stress, and HI0 is the reference harvest index.

2.3.5. Water Use Efficiency

Water use efficiency (WUE) refers to the biomass or yield produced by consuming
unit water, and its calculation formula is as follows [42,43]:

100Y
WUE = (8)
ET
where Y is the final yield (t/ha) and ET is the evapotranspiration of the whole growing
season (mm).

2.4. AquaCrop Model Parameters

2.4.1. Crop Parameters
Crop parameters mainly include the crop growth period, initial crop canopy coverage
(CC0 ), maximum crop canopy coverage (CCx), crop water, and salt stress. This experiment
adopted the field test data-driven model of the high-tech demonstration base in Nonggao
District, Guangrao County, Dongying City, Shandong Province, China, from 2019 to 2021.
Taking the aboveground biomass (B) and yield (Y) of maize as the objective functions, the
simulation results of the model were matched with the measured results. Referring to
the FAO AquaCrop model manual, according to the existing parameters and parameter
range of corn as the initial value, the simulation value and the measured value were
compared. The differences in canopy coverage, aboveground biomass, and yield between
the simulated and measured values were analyzed, and the parameters were continuously
adjusted until the simulated values were in good agreement with the measured values. The
main crop parameters of the AquaCrop model are shown in Table 2.

2.4.2. Soil Parameters

The soil parameters mainly include the soil bulk density, saturated water content
of each soil layer, field capacity, wilting water content, soil texture, and soil type. The
measured soil parameters after applying the conditioners are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Main physical properties of the soil after applying the conditioners.

Depth SATa FCa PWP Ks

Treatments
(cm) (cm3 /cm3 ) cm3 /cm3 cm3 /cm3 (mm/d)
CK 0–80 44.00 23.36 5.18 230.40
H1 0–80 44.00 23.55 5.21 216.00
H2 0–80 44.37 23.64 5.40 207.36
H3 0–80 44.95 23.94 5.45 175.68
H4 0–80 45.60 24.37 5.69 175.68
C1 0–80 44.64 22.95 5.13 201.60
C2 0–80 44.65 22.23 5.19 175.68
C3 0–80 44.94 27.08 8.22 63.36
C4 0–80 45.26 26.17 8.04 48.00
SATa , FCa , PWP, and Ks are the volumetric saturated water content, field capacity, wilting water content, and
saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil after applying the conditioners, respectively.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 7 of 17

2.4.3. Management Parameters

Management data include irrigation measures and field management. Irrigation
measures include the irrigation mode, irrigation quota, irrigation cycle, and irrigation
times. The experimental data of the irrigation quota design in the whole growth period
of the maize were sorted and set as non-coverage and non-ridge in surface runoff soil
measurement measures.

2.5. Model Validation and Evaluation Methods

The AquaCrop model was used to simulate the canopy coverage, aboveground
biomass, yield of drip irrigation maize, and soil water content. The results were fitted with
the measured values of the experimental data from 2019 to 2020. The model results were
verified by root-mean-square error (RMSE), simulation error or deviation percentage (Pe),
and determination coefficient (R2 ). The closer the RMSE to 0, the better the model perfor-
mance. Pe is used to evaluate the deviation between the observed and simulated yield and
the observed value. If Pe is close to 0, the model performance is better. When R2 is close
to 1, the simulation performance is good [44]. When R2 is greater than 0.5, the simulation
results are considered acceptable [45–48]. According to studies by Zheng et al. (2013) [49]
and Wang et al. (2014) [43], the relative yield (Yrel ) and relative water use efficiency (WUErel )
can be used to select the appropriate amount of irrigation related to the high yield and
water use efficiency demand under each conditioner treatment. The calculation formula is
as follows: r
1 n
n ∑ i =1 i
RMSE = ( S − Oi ) 2 (9)

( S i − Oi )
Pe = × 100 (10)
Oi
2
2 ∑in=1 (Oi − O)(Si − S)
R = (q ) (11)
2 2
∑in=1 (Oi − O) ∑in=1 (Si − S)
Y
Yrel = (12)
Ym
WUE
WUErel = (13)
WUEm
where Oi is the observed value, Si is the simulated value and O is the average of the
measured values, S is the average value of simulated values, Y is the final yield under
simulation, Ym is the maximum simulated final yield in the scenario simulation, WUE is
the water use efficiency under simulation, and WUEm is the maximum water use efficiency
in the scenario simulation.

2.6. Scenario Simulation of Amount of Irrigation Design

In order to further explore the reasonable amount of irrigation under different soil
conditioner dosages in coastal saline–alkali areas, the AquaCrop model was used for
scenario simulations of different amounts. Four levels of irrigation were designed: 30 mm,
60 mm, 90 mm, and 120 mm, based on full irrigation. Four levels of HA dosages were
designed: 5 g/m2 (H1), 15 g/m2 (H2), 25 g/m2 (H3), and 35 g/m2 (H4). Four levels of
CMC dosages were designed: 1 g/m2 (C1), 2 g/m2 (C2), 3 g/m2 (C3), and 5 g/m2 (C4). A
total of 36 simulation programs were designed, as detailed in Table 4.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 8 of 17

Table 4. Simulation programs of AquaCrop.

SPS SCS IA (mm) SPS SCS IA (mm) SPS SCS IA (mm) SPS SCS IA (mm)
SP1 CK 30 SP10 CK 60 SP19 CK 90 SP28 CK 120
SP2 H1 30 SP11 H1 60 SP20 H1 90 SP29 H1 120
SP3 H2 30 SP12 H2 60 SP21 H2 90 SP30 H2 120
SP4 H3 30 SP13 H3 60 SP22 H3 90 SP31 H3 120
SP5 H4 30 SP14 H4 60 SP23 H4 90 SP32 H4 120
SP6 C1 30 SP15 C1 60 SP24 C1 90 SP33 C1 120
SP7 C2 30 SP16 C2 60 SP25 C2 90 SP34 C2 120
SP8 C3 30 SP17 C3 60 SP26 C3 90 SP35 C3 120
SP9 C4 30 SP18 C4 60 SP27 C4 90 SP36 C4 120
SPS is the simulation program, SCS is the soil conditioner, and IA is the amount of irrigation.

3. Results
3.1. AquaCrop Model Calibration
According to the maize parameters in the model manual recommended by Raes [50],
the parameters in the AquaCrop model were calibrated using the measured data in 2019.
The main crop parameters in the model are shown in Table 5. The CC0 and CCx of maize
were 1.50% and 90%, respectively. According to the change in canopy coverage in the maize
growth cycle, the estimated CGC and CDC were 15.3% and 11%, respectively, which were
higher than the 10.4% of CGC and 8.0% of CDC, respectively, the values recommended by
the model manual.

Table 5. Calibration results of AquaCrop model crop parameters.

CC Aboveground Biomass Yield

Treatment
RMSE (%) Pe (%) Pe (%)
CK 11.5 −0.756 9.852
H1 11.3 3.721 2.117
H2 12.1 −0.450 0.922
H3 11.3 −5.624 −4.024
H4 12.7 −8.508 −7.404
C1 9.5 5.362 13.018
C2 8.9 3.944 13.100
C3 9.2 3.438 11.302
C4 8.9 1.477 11.790

WP* is one of the important crop production parameters in AquaCrop. For a given
crop variety, this parameter is usually constant. In order to improve the simulation accuracy,
the WP* was fixed at 17 g/m2 in this study, which was consistent with the maize parameter
recommended by the model, within the range of 16.9–50.6 g/m2 recommended by the
model manual. The HI0 was fixed at 36%, within the range of 24–72% recommended by the
model manual. In the salt stress module, the lower limit of the influence threshold of salt on
maize growth was 2 dS/m, and the upper limit of the influence threshold of salt on maize
growth was 15 dS/m, which were in the ranges of 1–3 dS/m and 5–15 dS/m recommended
by the model manual. Other parameters (such as the upper limit of water stress on
canopy, substrate temperature, etc.) were consistent with the parameters recommended
by the model manual. The calibration results (Table 5) showed that the crop parameters
in the model were well adjusted using the measured crop canopy coverage, aboveground
biomass, yield, and other data in 2019. The RMSE of canopy coverage was less than
12.7, aboveground biomass was −8.508 < Pe < 5.362, and yield was −7.404 < Pe < 13.100,
indicating that the crop parameters in the model were well adjusted.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 9 of 17

3.2. AquaCrop Model Validation

3.2.1. Canopy Coverage
The model was verified by CC in 2020 and 2021, so as to determine the leaf develop-
ment and simulate the CC curve. The measured and simulated canopy coverage processed
annually are shown in Figure 2. The CC was low 20 days after sowing and then entered
a rapid development stage. The CC reached the maximum and tended to be stable 50 d
after sowing, and began to decline at 85 d after sowing. Compared with no soil conditioner
(CK), the RMSE and Pe values of the HA treatments were smaller, whereas the RMSE
and Pe values of the CMC treatments were larger, indicating that the simulation effect of
the model on CC was better when HA was applied and worse when CMC was applied.
These differences could be attributed to the model failing to consider the positive effects of
amendments on soil temperature and salinity. Simulations of canopy growth under
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW water
10 of 18
stress showed that canopy coverage was poor.

100 100 100

2020-CK 2020-H1 2020-H2
80 80 80
CC（%）

CC（%）

CC（%）
60 60 60
40 RMSE=12.0 40 RMSE=6.2 40 RMSE=7.1
20 R2=0.92 20 R2=0.92 20 R2=0.96
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS（d） DAS（d） DAS（d）
100 100 100
2020-H3 2020-H4 2020-C1
80 80 80
CC（%）

CC（%）

60 60 CC（%） 60
40 RMSE=8.6 40 RMSE=5.9 40 RMSE=6.9
20 R2=0.98 20 R2=0.98 20 R2=0.96
0 0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS（d） DAS（d） DAS（d）
100 100 100
2020-C2 2020-C3 2020-C4
80 80 80
CC（%）

CC（%）

CC（%）

60 60 60
40 RMSE=6.9 40 RMSE=11.2 40 RMSE=15.2
20 R2=0.96 20 R2=0.92 20 R2=0.87
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS（d） DAS（d） DAS（d）
100 100 100
2021-CK 2021-H1 2021-H2
80 80 80
CC（%）

CC（%）

CC（%）

60 60 60
40 RMSE=7.1 40 RMSE=4.1 40 RMSE=6.2
20 R2=0.96 20 R2=0.98 20 R2=0.90
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS（d） DAS（d） DAS（d）
100 100 100
2021-H3 2021-H4 2021-C1
80 80 80
CC（%）

CC（%）

CC（%）

60 60 60
40 RMSE=8.3 40 RMSE=5.7 40 RMSE=7.1
20 R2=0.96 20 R2=0.98 20 R2=0.96
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS（d） DAS（d） DAS（d） Simulated
100 100 100 Observed
2021-C2 2021-C3 2021-C4
80 80 80
CC（%）

CC（%）

CC（%）

60 60 60 RMSE=19.9
RMSE=18.6
40 RMSE=11.1 40 40 R2=0.79
R2=0.86
20 R2=0.64 20 20
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS（d） DAS（d） DAS（d）

Figure 2. Simulated and observed canopy coverage curves of maize under all treatments in 2020–
Figure 2. Simulated and observed canopy coverage curves of maize under all treatments in 2020–2021.
2021. CC is the canopy coverage of maize, and DAS is the days after sowing.
CC is the canopy coverage of maize, and DAS is the days after sowing.
3.2.2. Aboveground Biomass
Simulations of aboveground biomass during the validation period were analyzed.
As shown in Figure 3, the model could accurately simulate growth trends in the above-
ground biomass of each treatment, although most of the simulated values were slightly
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 10 of 17

3.2.2. Aboveground Biomass

Simulations of aboveground biomass during the validation period were analyzed. As
shown in Figure 3, the model could accurately simulate growth trends in the aboveground
biomass of each treatment, although most of the simulated values were slightly lower than
the observed values. Comparing irrigation treatments showed that the simulation results
for the final aboveground biomass under HA treatments were better than those under11
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW CMC
of 18
treatments.

16 16 16
2020-CK 2020-H1 2020-H2

Biomass（t/ha）
Biomass (t/ha)

Biomass (t/ha)
12 12 12
8 8 8
RMSE=0.4 RMSE=1.1 RMSE=1.0
4 4 R2=0.98 4
R2=1.0 R2=0.96
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
16 16 16

Biomass (t/ha)
2020-T13-H3 2020-H4 2020-C1
Biomass (t/ha)

Biomass (t/ha)

12 12 12
8 8 8
RMSE=0.8 RMSE=1.4 RMSE=0.8
4 R2=0.98 4 4
R2=0.99 R2=1.0
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
16 16 16
2020-C2 2020-C3 2020-C4
Biomass (t/ha)

Biomass (t/ha)
Biomass (t/ha)

12 12 12
8 8 8
RMSE=0.7 RMSE=1.5 RMSE=2.2
4 4 4
R2=1.0 R2=0.84 R2=0.82
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
16 16 16
2021-CK 2021-H1 2021-H2
Biomass (t/ha)

Biomass (t/ha)

Biomass (t/ha)

12 12 12
8 8 8
RMSE=0.5 RMSE=0.9 RMSE=1.1
4 4 R2=0.96 4
R2=0.98 R2=0.88
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
16 16 16
2021-H3 2021-H4 2021-C1
Biomass (t/ha)
Biomass (t/ha)

12 12 12
Biomass (t/ha)

8 8 8
RMSE=1.0 RMSE=0.7 RMSE=0.8
4 4 R2=0.96 4
R2=0.92 R2=0.94
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
16 16 16
2021-C2 2021-C3 2021-C4
Biomass (t/ha)

Biomass (t/ha)

Biomass (t/ha)

12 12 12 Simulated
8 8 8 Observed
RMSE=1.1 RMSE=1.5 RMSE=2.1
4 4 4
R2=0.92 R2=0.86 R2=0.78
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Simulated
Simulated and
and observed
observed biomass
biomass curves
curves of
of maize
maize under
under all
all treatments
treatmentsin
in2020–2021.
2020–2021. DAS
DAS
is the days after sowing.
is the days after sowing.

3.2.3. Soil Water Storage

The AquaCrop model is a water-driven model. It is very important to evaluate the
simulation ability of soil water content (SWS). All of the data in the two validation grow-
ing seasons (2020–2021) were predicted by 30 cm soil profile SWS. The measured soil wa-
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 11 of 17

3.2.3. Soil Water Storage

The AquaCrop model is a water-driven model. It is very important to evaluate the
simulation ability of soil water content (SWS). All of the data in the two validation growing
seasons (2020–2021) were predicted by 30 cm soil profile SWS. The measured soil water
content under each treatment in 2020–2021 was compared with the simulated soil water
content, as shown in Figure 4. The variation trend in SWS values, simulated and observed
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
by each treatment model, was basically the same. However, there was a great difference
between the simulated value and the observed value under the treatment of soil conditioner.
In 2020, the R2 of SWS under modifier treatment was ≤0.88, and the RMSE range was
conditioner.
4.7–19.8. In 2020,
In 2021, the Rthe
2 ofRSWS
2 of SWS under modifier treatment was ≤0.88, and the RMSE
under modifier treatment was ≤1.00, and the RMSE range
range
was was 4.7–19.8.
3.1–15.4. In 2021,
These results the R2 that
showed of SWS under modifier
the simulation effecttreatment was ≤1.00,
of the model on theand
soil the
water
RMSE range was 3.1–15.4. These results showed
storage (SWS) under modifier conditions was poor. that the simulation effect of the model on
the soil water storage (SWS) under modifier conditions was poor.

200 200 200

2020-CK 2020-H1 2020-H2
150 150 150
SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)
100 100 100
RMSE=6.0 RMSE=4.7 RMSE=14.9
50 50 50
R2=0.90 R2=0.76 R2=0.40
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
200 200 200
2020-H3 2020-H4 2020-C1
150 150 150
SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

100 100 SWS(mm) 100

RMSE=7.9 RMSE=16.7 RMSE=9.6
50 R2=0.41 50 50
R2=0.32 R2=0.88
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
200 200 200
2020-C2 2020-C3 2020-C4
150 150 150
SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

100 100 100

RMSE=13.3 RMSE=13.2 RMSE=19.8
50 R2=0.71 50 50
R2=0.46 R2=0.04
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
200 200 200
2021-CK 2021-H1 2021-H2
150 150 150
SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

100 100 100

RMSE=11.4 RMSE=3.1 RMSE=8.0
50 50 50
R2=0.63 R2=0.96 R2=0.86
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
200 200 200
2021-H3 2021-H4 2021-C1
150 150 150
SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

100 100 100

50 RMSE=13.3 50 RMSE=9.2 50 RMSE=6.7
R2=0.79 R2=1.00 R2=0.61
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)
200 200 200
2021-C2 2021-C3 2021-C4 Simulated
150 150 150
SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

SWS(mm)

Observed
100 100 100
50 RMSE=9.2 50 RMSE=15.4 50 RMSE=10.4
R2=-0.61 R2=0.69 R2=0.49
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DAS (d) DAS (d) DAS (d)

Figure 4. Simulation and observation of soil water storage under all treatments during 2020–2021.
Figure 4. Simulation and observation of soil water storage under all treatments during 2020–2021.
SWS is the soil water storage and DAS is the days after sowing.
SWS is the soil water storage and DAS is the days after sowing.
3.2.4. Yield
Figure 5 shows the simulated and measured maize yield in 2020–2021. The model
had a good simulation effect on maize yield from 2020 to 2021. The Pe of each treatment
ranged from 3.64% to 17.99%. The simulation effects of HA treatments were better than
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 12 of 17

3.2.4. Yield
Figure 5 shows the simulated and measured maize yield in 2020–2021. The model
had a good simulation effect on maize yield from 2020 to 2021. The Pe of each treatment
Agronomy 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
ranged from 3.64% to 17.99%. The simulation effects of HA treatments were better13thanof 18
that of CMC treatment. In 2021, the Pe between the simulated and measured yield of high
gradient CMC (C3 and C4) exceeded 10.62%, and the model underestimated the yield of
maize.
maize. The
The results
results showed
showed that
that the
the AquaCrop
AquaCrop model
model was
was sufficient
sufficient to
to predict
predict maize
maize yield
yield
under modifier conditions.
under modifier conditions.

2021 2020 and 2021

7 2020 Ysim=1.03Yobs Ysim=1.007Yobs
Ysim=0.985Yobs
Simulated corn yield (t/ha)

RMSE=0.004 RMSE=0.003
RMSE=0.007
6 R2=0.96 R2=0.97
R2=0.89

3
3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7
Observed corn yield (t/ha)
Figure 5. Observed and simulated maize yields for 2020 and 2021 seasons. The error bars represent
Figure 5. Observed and simulated maize yields for 2020 and 2021 seasons. The error bars represent
standard deviations.
standard deviations.
3.3. Optimization
3.3. Optimization of of Amount
Amount of of Irrigation
Irrigation under
under Soil
Soil Conditioners
Conditioners
According to
According to the
the needs
needs ofof high
high yield
yield and
and water-use
water-use efficiency,
efficiency,the the optimized
optimized amount
amount
of irrigation could be determined. Through the maximum simulated
of irrigation could be determined. Through the maximum simulated yield and WUE, the yield and WUE, the
simulated yield and water-use efficiency under each soil conditioner
simulated yield and water-use efficiency under each soil conditioner treatment scenario treatment scenario
werenormalized
were normalizedto tofind
findthe
theoptimized
optimizedamountamountof ofirrigation.
irrigation.TheTherelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenYYrelrel
and WUE
and WUErel rel could also be described by the quadratic function of the amount of irrigation.

Therefore,aareasonable
Therefore, reasonable amount
amount of irrigation
of irrigation could
could be determined
be determined according
according to theto the re-
response
sponse function
function of relative of relative
yield and yield and relative
relative water-usewater-use
efficiencyefficiency to the amount
to the amount of irriga-
of irrigation. For
tion. For example, when the initial salinity was 10 dS/m, the optimized
example, when the initial salinity was 10 dS/m, the optimized amount of irrigation without amount of irriga-
tionconditioner
soil without soiltreatment
conditioner was treatment
52 mm, was 52 mm,
as shown inas shown
Figure 6.inThe
Figure 6. The simulation
simulation results of
resultsscenarios
other of other under
scenarioseachunder each soil conditioner
soil conditioner treatmenttreatment
could be couldobtainedbe obtained
from the from
two
response functionsfunctions
the two response of relative
of yield and
relative relative
yield water use
and relative efficiency
water (Table 6).
use efficiency The results
(Table 6). The
showed that the optimized
results showed amount of
that the optimized irrigation
amount of maize for
of irrigation HA and
of maize forCMC
HA treatments
and CMC treat-were
47.0–65.9
ments were mm and 61.0–92.4
47.0–65.9 mm and mm, respectively,
61.0–92.4 in the coastalinsaline–alkali
mm, respectively, area.
the coastal saline–alkali area.

1.2

RMSE=0.004
1.1 Yrel=−6.839×10−6I2+0.0015I+0.919 R2=0.911
Optimized irrigation amount
1.0
Yrel / WUErel

0.9
WUErel=9.107×10-6I2-0.0018I+1.045

0.8 RMSE=0.005 Yrel

R2=0.957 WUErel
0.7 Fitting curve of Yrel
Fitting curve of WUErel
0.6
0 30 60 90 120
Irrigation amount (mm)
 tion. For example, when the initial salinity was 10 dS/m, the optimized amount of irriga-
tion without soil conditioner treatment was 52 mm, as shown in Figure 6. The simulation
results of other scenarios under each soil conditioner treatment could be obtained from
the two response functions of relative yield and relative water use efficiency (Table 6). The
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 results showed that the optimized amount of irrigation of maize for HA and CMC 13 treat-
of 17
ments were 47.0–65.9 mm and 61.0–92.4 mm, respectively, in the coastal saline–alkali area.

1.2

RMSE=0.004
1.1 Yrel=−6.839×10−6I2+0.0015I+0.919 R2=0.911
Optimized irrigation amount
1.0

Yrel / WUErel
0.9
WUErel=9.107×10-6I2-0.0018I+1.045

0.8 RMSE=0.005 Yrel

R2=0.957 WUErel
0.7 Fitting curve of Yrel
Fitting curve of WUErel
0.6
0 30 60 90 120
Irrigation amount (mm)

Figure 6. Optimized irrigation amount under the control treatment (CK).

Figure 6. Optimized irrigation amount under the control treatment (CK).

Table 6. The optimized levels of irrigation under different soil conditioner treatments.

Optimizations
Ym ETm WUEm
Treatment Salinity (dS/m) (mm) (kg/m) ET’ WUE’ Y’
(t/ha) IA’ (mm)
(mm) (kg/m) (t/ha)
CK 10 4.671 395.8 1.22 52.7 387.2 1.19 4.569
H1 10 4.666 396.2 1.24 47.0 388.7 1.22 4.578
H2 10 4.673 396.6 1.24 53.4 388.8 1.22 4.582
H3 10 4.664 394.1 1.25 65.9 385.2 1.22 4.558
H4 10 4.664 394.4 1.26 52.2 388.1 1.24 4.589
C1 10 4.514 355.5 1.30 82.1 350.7 1.28 4.536
C2 10 4.649 361.6 1.30 92.4 357.9 1.29 4.601
C3 10 4.705 372.1 1.32 61.0 367.8 1.30 4.651
C4 10 4.692 370.1 1.31 73.7 364.6 1.29 4.623
Ym , ETm , and WUEm are the simulated yield, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency of maize, respectively.
IA’, ET’, WUE’, and Y’ are the optimized amount of irrigation, evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, and yield
of maize.

4. Discussion
The AquaCrop model was used to simulate the growth and yield of maize in coastal
saline–alkali areas, and the model parameters were corrected and verified through three
years of field test data. The results showed that the model could accurately simulate the
canopy coverage of maize from 2019 to 2021, although the content of CMC was greater than
2 g/m2 . The R2 ≥ (0.87) was relatively high, whereas the RMSE ≤ (15.2%) was relatively
low. When the dosage of CMC applied was greater than 2 g/m2 , the simulation effect of this
model on canopy coverage was poor, which might cause soil hardening with the treatment
of high concentrations of CMC, thus affecting crop growth and development [51]. Heng
et al. [52] pointed out that the simulation effect of this model under irrigation treatment
was significantly better than that under water stress. Sandhu and Irmak [53] also found
that the model had limitations in simulating canopy coverage under water stress.
The three-year simulation results of aboveground biomass showed that the model
could accurately simulate growth trends in the aboveground biomass of each treatment,
although the simulated values of most treatments were slightly lower than the observed
values. The simulation effect of HA treatment was better than that of CMC treatment. Only
the influence of a modifier on soil structure was considered; therefore, the simulated value
was lower than the measured value. Zhang et al. [54] found that HA could not only affect
soil structure, but also improve chlorophyll content and nitrate reductase activity, which
was conducive to the accumulation of crop dry matter. Moreover, the model simply used
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 14 of 17

crop water productivity to simulate the actual aboveground biomass, and calculated the
aboveground biomass according to WP* and Tr. Therefore, the difference might be due to a
lower WP* or lower simulated Tr (unadjusted crop Tr coefficient), or the underestimation
of root absorption.
During the validation period from 2020 to 2021, the AquaCrop model predicted the
soil water content of 30 cm soil profiles, which showed that the simulated value of SWS was
overestimated in the growth stage of maize. These overestimations in SWS might also be
due to the unadjusted crop coefficient of Tr in the model. Similar differences were also found
in the study on the application of the AquaCrop model in maize [42,55]. Paredes et al. [55]
also reported that the distribution of ET in aquatic crops needed to be modified according
to the FAO56 method. Another reason for these differences might be that the simulation of
root development was inaccurate based on the simple assumption in the model that root
depth growth was expressed as an empirical formula related to time and maximum effective
root depth. Although the effect of water stress on root development was considered in
root development, due to the high variability in maize root density, it might not actually
reflect the complex situation of drip irrigation under film. Ning et al. [56] found that some
parameters related to root distribution, such as root density or specific root length, could be
added to calculate the root distribution of aquatic crops. The overestimation of SWS might
also be related to the capillary rise of groundwater.
From 2019 to 2021, the simulated yield of each modifier treatment under full irrigation
was underestimated, and the absolute value of the maximum deviation of each treatment
exceeded 13%, mainly because the simulated aboveground biomass was low, so the simu-
lated yield obtained was lower than the measured value. The simulation effects of maize
yield under the treatments of soil conditioner were worse than those without modifiers,
mainly because the application of HA and CMC was conducive to increasing crop root ac-
tivity, enhancing crop absorption and the utilization of nutrients, and maintaining vigorous
crop metabolism [24,57]. Therefore, it was not sufficient to simply consider the change in
soil structure by modifiers to simulate the final yield of the crops. In order to improve the
simulation accuracy under the condition of modifier, it is suggested to add a parameter to
the simulation under modifier conditions to express the promoting effect of the modifier
on crop growth. According to the scenario simulation results, under moderate salt stress,
the optimized levels of irrigation of HA and CMC were 47.0–65.9 mm and 61.0–92. 4 mm,
respectively.

5. Conclusions
The AquaCrop model was used to simulate the performance of maize growth under
different modifier types and application rates based on three-year field test data in coastal
saline–alkali areas of Shandong Province, China. The results showed that the AquaCrop
model could accurately simulate canopy coverage, aboveground biomass, and the yield of
maize under drip irrigation, considering the effects of amendments on soil field capacity,
saturated water content, permanent wilting point, and saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Modifiers and their dosages had important effects on crop evapotranspiration, water use
efficiency, and yield. According to the local maize planting and irrigation system, based
on the requirements of high yield and water use efficiency, it was recommended that the
amount of irrigation of humic acid (HA) treatment should be 47.0–65.9 mm and that of
sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) treatment should be 61.0–92.4 mm. In addition,
the amount of irrigation depends on soil water content and salt content during sowing. It is
suggested that the amount of irrigation should be increased when sowing under conditions
of high soil water content and low salt content. This suggestion can provide reference for
the irrigation management of HA and CMC in coastal saline–alkali areas.

Author Contributions: Methodology, W.M.; formal analysis, L.S.; investigation, G.L.; resources, Y.S.
(Yuyang Shan); data curation, J.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.; writing—review and
editing, J.Z.; visualization, J.Z.; supervision, L.S., Q.W. and J.W.; project administration, Y.S. (Yan Sun).
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 15 of 17

Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51979220,
41907010), the Key Research and Development Projects of Shaanxi Province, the Basic Research Plan
of Natural Science of Shaanxi Province (2020JQ-616), and the Shaanxi Provincial Department of
Education Special Scientific Research Project (21JK0783).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Tomaz, A.; Palma, P.; Alvarenga, P.; Gonçalves, M.C. Soil Salinity Risk in a Climate Change Scenario and Its Effect on Crop Yield.
Clim. Chang. Soil Interact. 2020, 13, 351–396.
2. Wu, Y.; Shan, L.; Guo, Z.; Peng, Y. Cultivated Land Protection Policies in China Facing 2030: Dynamic Balance System versus
Basic Farmland Zoning. Habitat Int. 2017, 69, 126–138. [CrossRef]
3. Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Y. Utilization Benefit of Cultivated Land and Land Institution Reforms: Economy, Society and
Ecology. Habitat Int. 2018, 77, 64–70. [CrossRef]
4. Ran, H.; Kang, S.; Hu, X.; Li, S.; Wang, W.; Liu, F. Capability of a Solar Energy-Driven Crop Model for Simulating Water
Consumption and Yield of Maize and Its Comparison with a Water-Driven Crop Model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2020, 287, 107955.
[CrossRef]
5. Cui, G.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Cao, Y.; Liu, X. Comprehensive Land Carrying Capacities of the Cities in the Shandong Peninsula
Blue Economic Zone and Their Spatio-Temporal Variations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 439. [CrossRef]
6. Lu, X.J.; Xiang, W.D.; Zheng, G.Y.; Wang, G.M. Research Progress on Improvement Measures of Saline Alkali Land. Jiangsu Agric.
Sci. 2015, 4, 120–125.
7. Li, Y.; Tao, J.; Chao, J.L.; Zhang, H.; Gu, W. Research Progress on Improvement Measures of “Platform Field Shallow Pond” in
Coastal Saline Alkali Land. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 2014, 32, 8.
8. Chen, X.B.; Yang, J.S.; Yang, Z.H.; Hu, S.J.; Liu, G.M. Study on Irrigation and Drainage Management and Water Salt Balance in
Weigan River Irrigation Area. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2018, 4, 59–65.
9. Liu, X.J. Study on Improvement and Utilization Technology of Saline Alkali Land in Water Shortage Area around Bohai Sea. Chin.
J. Eco-Agric. 2018, 26, 1521–1527.
10. Wang, S.; Wang, N.; Zhang, X.; Xu, J.P.; Li, K.Z.; Chen, D.Y. Effects of Improved Methods on Total Organic Carbon and Humus
Composition in Saline Alkali Paddy Field. J. Northwest A F Univ. Sci. Ed. 2017, 45, 43–50.
11. Liao, Q.; Gu, S.; Kang, S.; Du, T.; Tong, L.; Wood, J.D.; Ding, R. Mild Water and Salt Stress Improve Water Use Efficiency by
Decreasing Stomatal Conductance via Osmotic Adjustment in Field Maize. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 805, 150364. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
12. Nan, J.K.; Chen, X.M.; Wang, X.Y.; Liu, Z.X.; Li, X.L.; Ali, M.J. Effects of Different Modifiers on Saline Alkali Index and Crop Yield
of Coastal Saline Soil. Soils 2013, 45, 1227–1234.
13. Wang, Q.Z.; Wang, Y.; Sun, Z.M.; Liu, J.; Niu, S.B.; Xue, C.; Ma, W.Q. Improvement Effect of Humic Acid Application on Saline
Alkali Land. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 1227–1234.
14. Shaaban, M.; Abid, M. Amelioration of Salt Affected Soils in Rice Paddy System by Application of Organic and Inorganic
Amendments. Plant Soil Environ. 2013, 59, 227–233. [CrossRef]
15. Sun, Z.J.; Huang, Z.B.; Lu, Z.H. Improvement Effects of Different Environmental Materials on Coastal Saline Alkali Soil in the
Yellow River Delta. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2013, 27, 186–190.
16. Zhuang, Z.D.; Li, X.H. Effects of Humic Acid and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield, Nitrogen Utilization and Nitrogen Loss of Maize.
J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2016, 22, 1232–1239.
17. Garcíaa, A.C.; Santosa, L.A.; Izquierdob, F.G.; Sperandioa, M.; Berbaraa, R. Vermicompost Humic Acids as an Ecological Pathway
to Protect Rice Plant against Oxidative Stress. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 47, 203–208. [CrossRef]
18. Damian, G.E.; Micle, V.; Sur, I.M. Mobilization of Cu and Pb from Multi-Metal Contaminated Soils by Dissolved Humic Substances
Extracted from Leonardite and Factors Affecting the Process. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 2869–2881. [CrossRef]
19. Ondrasek, G.; Romic, D.; Rengel, Z. Interactions of Humates and Chlorides with Cadmium Drive Soil Cadmium Chemistry and
Uptake by Radish Cultivars. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134887. [CrossRef]
20. Zeng, X.D.; Liang, Y.Q.; Lin, L.W.; Qu, Y.; Xu, D.M. Effects of Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose on Acid Soil Improvement and
Rice Growth. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2009, 8, 69–70.
21. Ning, S.; Jumai, H.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, B.; Zhang, J. Comparison of the Effects of Polyacrylamide and Sodium Carboxymethylcellu-
lose Application on Soil Water Infiltration in Sandy Loam Soils. Adv. Polym. Technol. 2019, 2019, 6869454. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 16 of 17

22. Qiu, C.X.; Zhang, R.B.; Qiu, H.X.; Gao, J. Effect of Water Retaining Agent Containing Montmorillonite and Polysaccharide on Soil
Physical Properties. Soils Fertil. Sci. China 2013, 4, 11–16.
23. Xi, Y.Q.; Zhao, Y.; Li, S.Y. Effects of Three Soil Amendments on Shear Strength of Aeolian Sandy Soil. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2018, 55,
1401–1410.
24. Li, H.J.; Wang, Q.J.; Tao, W.H.; Chai, J.; Zhao, G.X. Effects of Different Modifiers on Soil and Water Loss and Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Loss in Sloping Soybean Land on Loess Plateau. Sci. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 15, 117–125.
25. Wu, J.H.; Tao, W.H.; Wang, H.Y.; Wang, Q.J. Effects of Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose on Soil Aggregate Structure and Water
Movement Characteristics. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 117–123.
26. Jumai, H.L.D.M.; Ning, S.R.; Wang, Q.J.; Zhang, J.H. Comparative Analysis of the Effects of PAM and CMC on Soil Infiltration
and Evaporation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2020, 34, 121–127.
27. Sandhu, R.; Irmak, S. Assessment of AquaCrop Model in Simulating Maize Canopy Cover, Soil-Water, Evapotranspiration, Yield,
and Water Productivity for Different Planting Dates and Densities under Irrigated and Rainfed Conditions. Agric. Water Manag.
2019, 224, 105753. [CrossRef]
28. Smith, M. A Computer Program for Irrigation Planning and Management. FAO Irrig. Drain. Pap. 1992, 46, 134–138.
29. Jones, J.W.; Hoogenboom, G.; Porter, C.H.; Boote, K.J.; Batchelor, W.D.; Hunt, L.A.; Wilkens, P.W.; Singh, U.; Gijsman, A.J.; Ritchie, J.T.
The DSSAT Cropping System Model. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 18, 235–265. [CrossRef]
30. Van Diepen, C.V.; Wolf, J.V.; Van Keulen, H.; Rappoldt, C. WOFOST: A Simulation Model of Crop Production. Soil Use Manag.
1989, 5, 16–24. [CrossRef]
31. Kherif, O.; Seghouani, M.; Justes, E.; Plaza-Bonilla, D.; Bouhenache, A.; Zemmouri, B.; Dokukin, P.; Latati, M. The First Calibration
and Evaluation of the STICS Soil-Crop Model on Chickpea-Based Intercropping System under Mediterranean Conditions. Eur. J.
Agron. 2022, 133, 126449. [CrossRef]
32. Kherif, O.; Keskes, M.I.; Pansu, M.; Ouaret, W.; Rebouh, Y.-N.; Dokukin, P.; Kucher, D.; Latati, M. Agroecological Modeling of Ni-
trogen and Carbon Transfers between Decomposer Micro-Organisms, Plant Symbionts, Soil and Atmosphere in an Intercropping
System. Ecol. Model. 2021, 440, 109390. [CrossRef]
33. Stöckle, C.O.; Donatelli, M.; Nelson, R. CropSyst, a Cropping Systems Simulation Model. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 18, 289–307.
[CrossRef]
34. Hsiao, T.C.; Heng, L.; Steduto, P.; Rojas-Lara, B.; Raes, D.; Fereres, E. AquaCrop—The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield
Response to Water: III. Parameterization and Testing for Maize. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 438–447. [CrossRef]
35. Vanuytrecht, E.; Raes, D.; Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E.; Heng, L.K.; Garcia Vila, M.; Mejias Moreno, P. AquaCrop: FAO’s
Crop Water Productivity and Yield Response Model. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 62, 351–360. [CrossRef]
36. Sun, T.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, F.; Sun, B.; Wang, T.; Wu, J. Simulation of AquaCrop Model and Management Practice Optimization
for Dryland Maize Production under Whole Plastic-Film Mulching on Double Ridges. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 28, 918–926.
37. Wang, L.; Wu, J.S.; Li, Q.; Gu, J.; Xue, H. A Review on the Research and Application of Aqua Crop Model. Adv. Earth Sci. 2015, 30,
1100–1106.
38. Abedinpour, M.; Sarangi, A.; Rajput, T.B.S.; Singh, M.; Pathak, H.; Ahmad, T. Performance Evaluation of AquaCrop Model for
Maize Crop in a Semi-Arid Environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 110, 55–66. [CrossRef]
39. Slavich, P.G.; Petterson, G.H. Estimating the Electrical Conductivity of Saturated Paste Extracts from 1:5 Soil, Water Suspensions
and Texture. Soil Res. 1993, 31, 73–81. [CrossRef]
40. Wang, J.; Cai, H.J.; Chen, F.; Chen, X.M. Experimental Study on Evapotranspiration and Soil Evaporation in Summer Maize Field.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2004, 34, 1–7.
41. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Raes, D.; Fereres, E. AquaCrop—The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: I. Concepts
and Underlying Principles. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 426–437. [CrossRef]
42. Katerji, N.; Campi, P.; Mastrorilli, M. Productivity, Evapotranspiration, and Water Use Efficiency of Corn and Tomato Crops
Simulated by AquaCrop under Contrasting Water Stress Conditions in the Mediterranean Region. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 130,
14–26. [CrossRef]
43. Wang, J.; Huang, G.; Zhan, H.; Mohanty, B.P.; Zheng, J.; Huang, Q.; Xu, X. Evaluation of Soil Water Dynamics and Crop Yield
under Furrow Irrigation with a Two-Dimensional Flow and Crop Growth Coupled Model. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 141, 10–22.
[CrossRef]
44. Hara, P.; Piekutowska, M.; Niedbała, G. Selection of Independent Variables for Crop Yield Prediction Using Artificial Neural
Network Models with Remote Sensing Data. Land 2021, 10, 609. [CrossRef]
45. Jacovides, C.P.; Kontoyiannis, H. Statistical Procedures for the Evaluation of Evapotranspiration Computing Models. Agric. Water
Manag. 1995, 27, 365–371. [CrossRef]
46. Legates, D.R.; McCabe, G.J., Jr. Evaluating the Use of “Goodness-of-Fit” Measures in Hydrologic and Hydroclimatic Model
Validation. Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35, 233–241. [CrossRef]
47. Willmott, C.-J. On the Evaluation of Model Performance in Physical Geography. In Spatial Statistics and Models; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984; Volume 40, pp. 443–460.
48. Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic
Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2022, 12, 1541 17 of 17

49. Zheng, J.; Huang, G.; Wang, J.; Huang, Q.; Pereira, L.S.; Xu, X.; Liu, H. Effects of Water Deficits on Growth, Yield and Water
Productivity of Drip-Irrigated Onion (Allium cepa L.) in an Arid Region of Northwest China. Irrig. Sci. 2013, 31, 995–1008.
[CrossRef]
50. Raes, D.; Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E. Users Guide of AquaCrop; Version 4; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012.
51. Yang, S.; Xing, L.; Liu, H.; Guo, P. Effects of Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose Application on Soil Properties of New Cultivating
Farmland in Loess Plateau. J. China Agric. Univ. 2021, 26, 185–191.
52. Heng, L.K.; Hsiao, T.; Evett, S.; Howell, T.; Steduto, P. Validating the FAO AquaCrop Model for Irrigated and Water Deficient
Field Maize. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 488–498. [CrossRef]
53. Sandhu, R.; Irmak, S. Performance of AquaCrop Model in Simulating Maize Growth, Yield, and Evapotranspiration under
Rainfed, Limited and Full Irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 223, 105687. [CrossRef]
54. Zhang, J.; Xing, S.J.; Sang, M.; Ma, B.; Chu, X.; Su, L. Effect of Humic Acid on Poplar Physiology and Biochemistry Properties and
Growth under Different Water Level. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 24, 200–203.
55. Paredes, P.; de Melo-Abreu, J.P.; Alves, I.; Pereira, L.S. Assessing the Performance of the FAO AquaCrop Model to Estimate Maize
Yields and Water Use under Full and Deficit Irrigation with Focus on Model Parameterization. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 144,
81–97. [CrossRef]
56. Ning, S.; Shi, J.; Zuo, Q.; Wang, S.; Ben-Gal, A. Generalization of the Root Length Density Distribution of Cotton under Film
Mulched Drip Irrigation. Field Crops Res. 2015, 177, 125–136. [CrossRef]
57. Zhou, L.; Yuan, L.; Zhao, B.; Li, Y.; Lin, Z. Response of Maize Roots to Different Additive Amounts of Weathered Coal Humic
Acids. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2019, 52, 285–292.