Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes Basin
Water use efficiency (WUE) can be calculated using a range of methods differing in carbon uptake and water use variable selection. Consequently, inconsistencies arise between WUE calculations due to complex physical and physiological interactions. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compar...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-08-01
|
Series: | Agriculture |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/8/739 |
id |
doaj-50f4f0d62e994dc4b91092262e57f9d4 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-50f4f0d62e994dc4b91092262e57f9d42021-08-26T13:25:07ZengMDPI AGAgriculture2077-04722021-08-011173973910.3390/agriculture11080739Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes BasinKevin De Haan0Myroslava Khomik1Adam Green2Warren Helgason3Merrin L. Macrae4Mazda Kompanizare5Richard M. Petrone6Hydrometeorology Research Group, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadaHydrometeorology Research Group, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadaHydrometeorology Research Group, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadaDepartment of Civil, Geological and Environmental Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A9, CanadaBiogeochemisty Lab, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadaHydrometeorology Research Group, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadaHydrometeorology Research Group, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadaWater use efficiency (WUE) can be calculated using a range of methods differing in carbon uptake and water use variable selection. Consequently, inconsistencies arise between WUE calculations due to complex physical and physiological interactions. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare WUE estimates (harvest or flux-based) for alfalfa (C<sub>3</sub> plant) and maize (C<sub>4</sub> plant) and determine effects of input variables, plant physiology and farming practices on estimates. Four WUE calculations were investigated: two “harvest-based” methods, using above ground carbon content and either precipitation or evapotranspiration (ET), and two “flux-based” methods, using gross primary productivity (GPP) and either ET or transpiration. WUE estimates differed based on method used at both half-hourly and seasonal scales. Input variables used in calculations affected WUE estimates, and plant physiology led to different responses in carbon assimilation and water use variables. WUE estimates were also impacted by different plant physiological responses and processing methods, even when the same carbon assimilation and water use variables were considered. This study highlights a need to develop a metric of measuring cropland carbon-water coupling that accounts for all water use components, plant carbon responses, and biomass production.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/8/739ecosystem water use efficiencyharvest water use efficiencyalfalfa (<i>Medicago sativa</i>)maize (<i>Zea mays</i>)fluxpart (flux variance similarity partitioning)eddy covariance |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Kevin De Haan Myroslava Khomik Adam Green Warren Helgason Merrin L. Macrae Mazda Kompanizare Richard M. Petrone |
spellingShingle |
Kevin De Haan Myroslava Khomik Adam Green Warren Helgason Merrin L. Macrae Mazda Kompanizare Richard M. Petrone Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes Basin Agriculture ecosystem water use efficiency harvest water use efficiency alfalfa (<i>Medicago sativa</i>) maize (<i>Zea mays</i>) fluxpart (flux variance similarity partitioning) eddy covariance |
author_facet |
Kevin De Haan Myroslava Khomik Adam Green Warren Helgason Merrin L. Macrae Mazda Kompanizare Richard M. Petrone |
author_sort |
Kevin De Haan |
title |
Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes Basin |
title_short |
Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes Basin |
title_full |
Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes Basin |
title_fullStr |
Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes Basin |
title_full_unstemmed |
Assessment of Different Water Use Efficiency Calculations for Dominant Forage Crops in the Great Lakes Basin |
title_sort |
assessment of different water use efficiency calculations for dominant forage crops in the great lakes basin |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Agriculture |
issn |
2077-0472 |
publishDate |
2021-08-01 |
description |
Water use efficiency (WUE) can be calculated using a range of methods differing in carbon uptake and water use variable selection. Consequently, inconsistencies arise between WUE calculations due to complex physical and physiological interactions. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare WUE estimates (harvest or flux-based) for alfalfa (C<sub>3</sub> plant) and maize (C<sub>4</sub> plant) and determine effects of input variables, plant physiology and farming practices on estimates. Four WUE calculations were investigated: two “harvest-based” methods, using above ground carbon content and either precipitation or evapotranspiration (ET), and two “flux-based” methods, using gross primary productivity (GPP) and either ET or transpiration. WUE estimates differed based on method used at both half-hourly and seasonal scales. Input variables used in calculations affected WUE estimates, and plant physiology led to different responses in carbon assimilation and water use variables. WUE estimates were also impacted by different plant physiological responses and processing methods, even when the same carbon assimilation and water use variables were considered. This study highlights a need to develop a metric of measuring cropland carbon-water coupling that accounts for all water use components, plant carbon responses, and biomass production. |
topic |
ecosystem water use efficiency harvest water use efficiency alfalfa (<i>Medicago sativa</i>) maize (<i>Zea mays</i>) fluxpart (flux variance similarity partitioning) eddy covariance |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/8/739 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT kevindehaan assessmentofdifferentwateruseefficiencycalculationsfordominantforagecropsinthegreatlakesbasin AT myroslavakhomik assessmentofdifferentwateruseefficiencycalculationsfordominantforagecropsinthegreatlakesbasin AT adamgreen assessmentofdifferentwateruseefficiencycalculationsfordominantforagecropsinthegreatlakesbasin AT warrenhelgason assessmentofdifferentwateruseefficiencycalculationsfordominantforagecropsinthegreatlakesbasin AT merrinlmacrae assessmentofdifferentwateruseefficiencycalculationsfordominantforagecropsinthegreatlakesbasin AT mazdakompanizare assessmentofdifferentwateruseefficiencycalculationsfordominantforagecropsinthegreatlakesbasin AT richardmpetrone assessmentofdifferentwateruseefficiencycalculationsfordominantforagecropsinthegreatlakesbasin |
_version_ |
1721195466632200192 |