Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85

Adaptation and evaluation of the CROPGRO-soybean model

to predict regional yield and production夽
Shrikant S. Jagtap∗ , James W. Jones
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, 104 Rogers Hall, Gainsville, FL 32611-0570, USA
Received 18 April 2001; received in revised form 12 December 2001; accepted 18 December 2001

Abstract
In spite of the availability of numerous crop-growth models, there has been limited experience in applying them to predict
regional production and its variability. The main difficulty is a substantial mismatch between spatial and temporal scales of
available data and crop simulation model input requirements. This study developed and tested an operational procedure to
predict soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) yield and production by linking the CROPGRO-soybean model with a low resolution
regional database of weather, soils, management, and varieties. Historically observed census yields were detrended to remove
effects of changes in technology and then aggregated to a scale of 0.5◦ cell (about a 50 km grid cell) (ĝ) using an area-weighting
approach. Spatial yield variability within a grid cell was simulated (ý) using nine input combinations (3 varieties, 3 planting
dates, 1 soil and 1 initial condition) which were averaged for comparison with aggregated census yield, ĝ in each cell and
year. Yield bias was estimated by minimizing the root mean squared error (RMSE) between corrected ŷ and ĝ. The yield
correction factor needs to be site-specific to account for spatial variations in constraints and management. Yield correction
factor ranged from 0.40 to 0.50 in more than 75% of grid cells. When corrected, the success rate for the goodness of fit of ŷ
and ĝ was ∼100 and 80% for variance at the 95% confidence limit. The 17-year mean of actual yield was accurately predicted
with a slope of 0.95, small intercept (−0.025) and R2 of 0.95. When validated, the prescribed factor test error was 14%,
within the 16% guideline set by the Environmental Protection Agency (1982) as an acceptable criteria for a model to qualify
for management application. Median RMSE were 15, 8, 32, 7 and 85% for 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995, respectively.
Years 1993 and 1995 were dominated by high water stress. We conclude that the grid-specific yield correction approach can
effectively correct bias in simulated yields and accurately predict interannual variability using readily available inputs. Future
steps are needed to incorporate procedures that account dynamically for yield susceptibility to pests and diseases. Testing and
improvement of the model should continue to realize its potential.
© 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Scaling up simulations; Regional yield predictions; CROPGRO-soybean; Spatial analysis; Yield variability

1. Introduction

Much progress has been made in developing models

夽 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Journal Series No.
R-07981.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-352-392-1864x261;
fax: +1-352-392-8476.
E-mail address: ssjagtap@mail.ifas.ufl.edu (S.S. Jagtap).
that simulate the growth and production of crops in
many environments. There are clear advantages in
adopting these plot-scale crop simulation models for
analyzing regional production, because agricultural
recommendations and policies are generally imple-

0167-8809/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 8 8 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 5 8 - 9
74 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
mented at this scale (Moen et al., 1994; Chipanshi
et al., 1999). This interest has been additionally fu-
eled by climate change research that seeks to explore
impact on regional food productivities and options
for adaptations (Haskett et al., 1995; Rosenzweig and
Hillel, 1998). However, there remain several chal-
lenges in using crop simulation models for large area
yield predictions. A dynamic crop model is typically
designed to simulate plant growth, yield and resource
utilization at a point in space over time, where cen-
tral tendency, variances and trends of underlying
inputs can be specified with certainty. As long as
the inputs are provided over time, crop models with
some site-validation and calibration have proved to
be useful tools to characterize time dependence and
interannual responses of yields and other variables
(Boote et al., 1997).
This conventional approach of first validating the
models at each field in which it is to be used is time
consuming, prohibitively expensive, and impractical
to apply at a regional scale. Applying field scale mod-
els to regional yield assessment may require perfect
aggregation of effects of all possible input combina-
tions over geographic and probability space. Data col-
lection over large areas, which is possible at a field
level, is not currently realistic. Therefore, large-area
modeling cannot take into account the level of detail
found at the field or farm scale. Errors are introduced
whenever models are used at scale for which they
were not developed. Consequently, the models may
not perform adequately across all possible production
environments and must be tested across broad agricul-
tural areas to be useful in large-area yield predictions.
Therefore, a reasonable approach is needed to capture
heterogeneity in inputs over the production environ-
ment to minimize sources of variability and errors in
yield prediction.
The regional assessment process may be facilitated
by increasing the number of weather data networks,
geostatistics, and new GIS-based methods for im-
proving availability of spatial digital data bases such
as the vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis
project (VEMAP) data bases for daily weather and
soil texture (Kittel et al., 1995). The resolution of the
VEMAP database is (0.5◦ ) equivalent to an area of
approximately 250,000 ha (617, 500 acres) in Georgia.
The national agricultural statistical services (NASS)
also provides annual digital data on yield, production,
area planted and harvested, and a range of planting
dates aggregated at a county scale (NASS, 1997).
Combining these two data sources make it possible to
simulate, evaluate, and improve the accuracy of the
estimated yields by calibration.
A handful of studies have been made (Kunkel and
Hollinger, 1991; Van Lanen et al., 1992; Moen et al.,
1994; Haskett et al., 1995) using crop simulation mod-
els for regional yield simulations using region-specific
representative soil(s), crop varieties, and planting
times. Weather inputs to the models were obtained
from a station representative of the region. Soil water
variables required for the simulation were obtained
using relative area of each soil type. Averaging arith-
metically or using rule-based approaches such as area
weighting and probability of plantings achieved yield
aggregation. Simulated yield and its variability gen-
erally exceeded the spatially averaged regional yield
and its variability. The most often mentioned causes
were lack of crop model sensitivity to environmental
stresses such as temperatures (Kunkel and Hollinger,
1991), drought, flooding, extreme weather events
(Kunkel and Hollinger, 1991; Chipanshi et al., 1999),
pests, and harvest losses (Moen et al., 1994; Chipanshi
et al., 1999). These studies focused on either one crop-
reporting district (Moen et al., 1994; Haskett et al.,
1995) or on few very large regions across states
(Kunkel and Hollinger, 1991; Chipanshi et al., 1999)
and used various data sources and methods for yield
simulations.
The objective of this work was to develop and test a
methodology to use CROPGRO-soybean (Jones et al.,
1989; Boote et al., 1998; Tsuji et al., 1998), a dynamic
process based crop model, for yield estimation in an
area of about 0.25 million ha. Three problems arise
when adapting CROPGRO for regional scale predic-
tions. First is how to derive the inputs needed to run
the model at the new scale because of spatial variabil-
ity in production systems, input use, skills of farmers,
and multiple stresses not accounted for in the model.
Secondly, how can one best mimic decisions made by
farmers who are attempting to reduce risk by vary-
ing cultivar, crops, planting dates and other manage-
ment decisions to control stresses? The third problem
is how to account for the effect of stresses on yield not
included in CROPGRO such as pests and diseases?
Georgia was selected for this case study because it
is at the southern fringe of the soybean production
 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85 75

zone where soybean production is undergoing sub-

stantial changes. Yields in this region are considerably
lower than in the major soybean growing region, partly
due to heterogeneity of soils, their general poor qual-
ity, and less intensive management practices. Viable
soybean simulations of this area are thus particularly
relevant.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

The case study covered soybean production in the

state of Georgia over the 1974–1995 time period. The
area devoted to soybean increased from 0.8 million ha
in 1972 to a peak of 2.3 million ha in 1982 and has been
steadily declining since then to about 0.3 million ha in
1995. As of 1994, about 82% of eligible producers vol-
untarily participated in the government program aimed
to limit production in return for payments. This pro-
gram ended in 1996 and soybean production is again
increasing.
Dominant soils in the study area are sandy loam
soils in the flat southern areas and loamy soil in the
northern higher elevation areas. According to the
VEMAP database (Kittel et al., 1995), spatial distribu-
tion of potential extractable soil water varies from 143
to 189 mm due to variations in depth and texture. Mean
growing season (May–October) rainfall increases from
west to east and north to south, with relatively high
rainfall (>450 mm/season) in the northeastern moun-
tain areas, along the coast, and areas bordering Florida
in south (Fig. 1). Soybean is cultivated throughout the
state, but 85% of the total soybean production is con-
centrated in the southeastern part of the state, which is
characterized by high rainfall (450–550 mm/season)
and deep sandy loam soils with potential extractable
soil water above 180 mm. Soybeans are grown in
rotation with non-legumes and also in succession.
Fig. 1. Map of Georgia showing county boundaries along
with: (a) average soybean area harvested; (b) growing season
2.2. Simulation of soybean yields (May–October) rainfall during the 1990–1995 period.

Yields were simulated for each year using the

CROPGRO-soybean (Jones et al., 1989; Hoogenboom stress, and management. Using site-specific input
et al., 1994; Boote et al., 1998; Tsuji et al., 1998), data, it calculates development, growth, and partition-
a dynamic process based crop model that simulates ing processes on a daily basis, starting at planting and
how soybean cultivars respond to soil, weather, water ending when harvest maturity is predicted. As a result,
76 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
the response of the soybean plant to different soils,
weather, and management conditions can be predicted
well (Boote et al., 1998). The CROPGRO-soybean
model has been used to simulate soybean growth and
yield in response to management (Egli and Bruening,
1992), environmental conditions (Curry et al., 1995),
genetic yield potential (Boote and Tollenaar, 1994;
Mavromatis et al., 2001), and to diagnose within field
yield variability (Paz et al., 1998), and to estimate
yield changes and management adaptation associated
with climate change (Jones et al., 1999).
2.3. Weather data inputs
The weather data were obtained from the VEMAP
(Kittel et al., 1995) database, consisting of daily so-
lar radiation (MJ m−2 /day), maximum and minimum
air temperatures (◦ C), and rainfall (mm/day) for each
half-degree grid cell (∼250,000 ha in the study re-
gion). The weather data for each grid cell represents
aggregated weather from existing weather stations in
which monthly totals of the daily values match the
long-term monthly climatology but the daily series has
variances and covariances characteristic of a station’s
weather records. It was created using a stochastic daily
weather generator parameterized with daily records
from 870 stations (Richardson, 1981). In VEMAP,
daily solar radiation was generated using CLIMSIM
(Running et al., 1987) from daily maximum and min-
imum temperatures and precipitation. Similar weather
data aggregation methods are used routinely by the
NASS for predicting crop yield (McCormick Myers,
1994) as well as regional application (Kunkel and
Hollinger, 1991; Haskett et al., 1995).
2.4. Soil parameter inputs
For each grid cell, the most common soil was iden-
tified from the VEMAP database. VEMAP soil data
is based on the 10 km soil database developed by
Kern (1994, 1995). CROPGRO requires soil water
inputs (lower, upper, and saturated water holding lim-
its), bulk density, total carbon by soil layer, pH, and
nitrate and ammonium nitrogen. None of the soil wa-
ter inputs were available in the VEMAP database.
VEMAP included the soil physical properties (sand,
clay, rock fractions, organic carbon) up to 1.5 m soil
depth, which were used to estimate drained upper limit
according to Ritchie et al. (1999). The lower limit of
plant extractable water was estimated as the differ-
ence between the drained upper limit and water hold-
ing capacity contained in the VEMAP database (Kern,
1995). Root distributions (Jones et al., 1991) and upper
limit of stage-1 evaporation were calculated using the
Ritchie and Crum (1989) methods. Additional soil
parameters, including the soil albedo, a soil water
drainage rate constant and runoff curve number, were
based on soil texture from the generic soil database
provided with the DSSAT-models (Tsuji et al., 1998).
2.5. Management inputs
Regional yield variability is a consequence of the
variability of cultivars, cultural practices (such as
planting date, plant density, row spacing, and planting
depths), management skills of farmers, soil proper-
ties, types and abundance of pests and diseases, and
weather. These determinants of yield vary both spa-
tially and temporarily and consequently may result in
significant variations in yield over time and space. To
capture the regional variability of the soybean produc-
tion systems, a total of nine combinations consisting
of three commonly grown varieties, three planting
windows (early, normal and late), the most dominant
soil and one initial condition (see Table 1) were sim-
ulated for each grid cell each year. These combina-
tions were based on the published agricultural census
(NASS, 1997), extension publications, and individual
researchers familiar with the state and reflect typical
late 1990s technology and growing conditions. A mix
of early to late maturing and high yielding cultivars
from maturity group V, VI or VII (Raymer et al.,
1990, 1993) with a row spacing of 0.91 m and a plant
population of 270,000 plants ha−1 were simulated.
Sensitivity analysis showed that simulated yields were
not very sensitive to variations in plant population
(150,000–337,000 plants ha−1 ).
2.6. Simulation runs
CROPGRO-soybean was run for each grid cell for
non-irrigated conditions. The daily soil water balance
was initialized with a soil profile at the lower limit of
plant extractable soil water on January 1 each year.
Thereafter, planting dates were automatically deter-
mined by the model within each planting window and
 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
Table 1
Summary of inputs for crop simulation runs
Management No. of Description
cases runs
Variety 3 Most commonly grown
varieties in the state
belonging to maturity groups
V, VII and VII were
simulated for each grid cell
Planting date 3 These planting opportunities
were defined over a planting
period characterized as early,
normal and late according to
NASS (1997)
Soils 1 This was the most dominant
soil occupying largest portion
of the grid cell area
Initial condition 1 Initial soil water content was
set at lower limit of plant
extractable soil water on
January 1 each year which is
before the onset of rainy
season
season on the first day whenever soil water content of
the top 0.3 m was at least 40% of the available water
and soil temperature was at least 10 ◦ C. The earliest
planting date allowed was between May 5 and 24
(NASS, 1997). Most farmers, however, plant during
the optimum-planting window of May 25–June 20
and a few may plant late from June 21 to July 5.
In most years, about 17.5, 65, and 17.5% of area is
planted during the early, optimum and late planting
windows. For abnormal seasons such as the dry years
of 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1995, we
assumed a delayed planting distribution of 17.5, 17.5
and 65% due to delayed rains during first two plant-
ing windows. CROPGRO-soybean does not explicitly
simulate disease and pest problems, but includes an
empirical soil fertility and disease factor to account
for potential soil fertility limitations or soil-based
pests such as nematodes. According to Boote et al.
(1997) and Mavromatis et al. (2001) the value of this
factor was 0.92. This factor reduces canopy photo-
synthesis by 8% daily throughout the growing season
and therefore biomass growth rate.
Model simulations were run assuming the same
nine combinations of inputs throughout the test pe-
riod. There were no carry over effects from one grow-
ing season to a following season. The three simulated
yields by variety, soil type and initial conditions were
77
averaged for each planting date, which were then
weighted by planting percentages to give a mean sim-
ulated rain-fed yield (ý) for each grid cell, soil and
weather year.
2.7. Historical yields
Historical county-average soybean yields were
obtained between 1974 and 1995 for counties in
Georgia (NASS, 1997). The simulated and observed
time series yields were not comparable, because the
simulated yield assumed constant level of technology
throughout the test period. Whereas, due to numer-
ous factors (e.g. technology changes such as fertilizer
use, pest management, and improved seeds), yield se-
ries sometime shows a low-frequency trend. Higher-
frequency deviations are primarily attributed to
weather variability and lower frequency trend to tech-
nology. A linear trend analysis technique (Swanson
and Nyankori, 1970; Hollinger et al., 2001) isolated
the technology trend from that of effects of weather
on interannual variability of yields. Thus, using the
estimated linear trend, county yield for each year was
recomputed by adding the yield gain due to technol-
ogy changes between production year and the last
year of test period, 1995, to the observed difference
between observed yield and detrended yield for the
year of interest. Yields during the 1974–1990 pe-
riod were used for calibration, while yields for the
1991–1995 period were used for validation.
A typical grid cell covered several counties, and
yields varied among counties during and between
years. To resolve difference in the scale at which
simulation runs were conducted (i.e. 0.5◦ grid cell)
and the individual county yield data from NASS,
county yields were aggregated to grid level yields
using area-weighting approach. Grid cell yield in a
year (ĝ) was the sum of weighted county yields (i.e.
county yield times relative grid cell area occupied by
the county) for all counties in a grid cell. Standard de-
viation of yields (σ ) was also calculated from county
yields in a grid cell. Aggregated grid cell yields can
therefore be compared with simulated yields using
grid cell weather, soil and management inputs. Trend
analysis revealed that, in spite of technological ad-
vances such as Round-up Ready soybeans, new vari-
eties, narrow-rows, and mechanization, yields did not
increase appreciably over the study period.
78 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
2.8. Sources of yield bias
One of the most important criteria for regional
applications of a crop model is that the model
should simulate annual and long-term yields similar
to those achieved under realistic farming situations.
CROPGRO-soybean simulates the direct effects of
weather, soil and management on yield, but does not
account for pests, diseases, weeds, or lodging and har-
vest losses. For well-managed, high input farms, yield
is indeed largely a function of temperature, radiation
and rainfall. Elsewhere, yields can fail to reach their
potential because of poor timing of farming opera-
tions, inappropriate cultivar selection or yield losses
caused by competition from weeds and damage by
pests. A number of studies (Kunkel and Hollinger,
1991; Moen et al., 1994; Haskett et al., 1995; Supit,
1997; Rosenthal et al., 1998; Hansen and Jones, 2000)
have shown the necessity of model calibration for es-
timating large area yields to account for aggregation
errors, lack of specificity in crop management inputs,
spatial resolution of soil and weather data and stresses
not explicitly simulated. Also, given that the extent
of grid cell/county data overlap is spatially variable
due to differences in county areas, simulated yield
(ý) should be corrected to reported grid cell yield (ĝ)
during the same year.
2.9. Yield bias correction
Yields were corrected using a yield correction factor
(Yc ) such that
ĝ = ýYc , 0 < Yc < 1 (1)
This was done by selecting Yc that minimized the root
mean squared error (RMSE) between ĝ and ý. The
computation of Yc was a systematic stepwise proce-
dure in which: (1) Yc was gradually increased until
RMSE was minimized over the 17 year (1974–1990)
time (T) period; (2) the Yc that produced the lowest
RMSE was adopted as the yield correction factor.

 1/2
RMSEmin = T −1 (ĝ − Yc ý)2 (2)
Yield correction is expected to reduce bias or system-
atic errors between simulated and observed grid cell
yield due to site-specific constraints not specifically
accounted for by CROPGRO-soybean, differences
in the actual and estimated environmental and the
management conditions, as well as errors due to
method used to aggregate county yields to grid cell
yields. The availability of sufficiently long historical
countywide yield data is essential for calibration and
subsequently for testing the predictions with an inde-
pendent data set. The time series ideally should cover
low, average and high yielding periods to reliably
estimate Yc . Since the study region is heterogeneous
with large variations in soil–climatic conditions, the
yield correction factor needs to be grid cell specific
to account for spatial variations in constraints and
management.
2.10. Validation
Since the model usually overpredicts yields without
bias correction, our objective was to demonstrate an
improvement in the prediction (ŷ = Yc ý) relative to
ĝ in both the annual pattern of yield over time and its
variance for each grid cell. The ability of the corrected
model to predict the annual pattern of ĝ in each grid
cell over the 17 years was examined using a t-test of
the regression line of ŷ versus ĝ and an index of agree-
ment (d, Willmott, 1982). For a set of paired ŷ and ĝ,
d is an index of the overall-relative degree to which ŷ
approaches ĝ. It varies between 0 and 1, where a value
of 1 expresses perfect agreement between ŷ and ĝ and
0 describes complete disagreement. A F-test was used
to determine if there were significant differences be-
tween observed and predicted yield variance for each
grid cell over the 17-year period.
Additionally, viable long-term soybean yield sim-
ulations are particularly relevant for climate change
studies. We regressed the 17-year mean of ŷ (Ŷ )
against the 17-year mean of ĝ (Ĝ) for the 58 grid
cells and the slope and intercept were tested at the
95% level of confidence to determine whether Ý and
Ĝ were the same throughout the state.
Validation was carried out by comparing the predic-
tions during the 1991–1995 period with the estimated
Yc using the 1974–1990 data to the reported 1991–
1995 yields. The criteria were RMSE, and the pre-
scribed factor test (PFT, Parrish and Smith, 1990;
Haskett et al., 1995). The PF test value was calcu-
lated using Eq. (3) for each grid cell and year to
determine whether there in an overlap of a confidence
interval of observed yields with a bounded about the
 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85 79

simulated mean: 3. Results and discussion




L
, ŷ < L

 3.1. Simulated yield
 ŷ

PF = 1, L ≤ ŷ ≤ U (3) Simulated yields were generally higher (Fig. 2) on



 ŷ average by 45% (range 34–58%) than observed yields

 , ŷ > U
U for the 1974–1995 period at grid cell 48 (R48 ), one
of the agriculturally dominant areas in the state of
where L and U were the lower and upper bounds of ob- Georgia. When ŷ were compared to variety of trial
served grid cell yield at the 95% confidence level, and yields from 1987 to 1992 at the agricultural station in
σĝ is the standard error of county yields in a grid cell: Tifton, GA (located within the grid cell R48 ), yields
were 7% higher than observed station yields in 4 of the
L = ĝ − t1−α/2,T −1 σĝ and U = ĝ + t1−α/2,T −1 σĝ 6 years. When the experimental fields suffered heavy
(4) insect losses in 1989, ý was 34% more than the 1989
station yield. During the same year, ŷ was 48% more
The PF test examines whether the bounds of this than the observed census yield ĝ. Although station
interval fall within a certain prescribed factor of the yields are point yields and both ŷ and ĝ are spatially
calibrated yield. A successful test was any year in averaged yields, this comparison shows that when
which PF < 1.16 corresponding to a 16% error level. assumptions in the model were nearly met, the yields
The same statistical rules were used to determine the compared well. One of the major difference between
degree of state production prediction each year. Pro- practices on farms in the region and the agricultural ex-
duction was computed as a product of yield and area periment station is that pesticides were used (Raymer
of harvest. et al., 1990, 1993) at the station to control pests and

Fig. 2. Comparison of simulated yield, observed yields and their standard deviation (S.D.), and experiment station yields at Tifton, GA.
Predicted yields were computed by correcting simulated yields using a yield correction factor determined by minimizing the RMSE between
observed yield and simulated yield at a grid cell.
80 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
diseases every year. Thus, there is a large gap between
what was simulated by the CROPGRO-soybean or
obtained at the research station and what is actually
obtained on farms in the region in most of the years.
For example, summer droughts in years 1980, 1990,
1993 and 1995 were devastating to dryland soybean
production and resulted in very low yields. Note from
Fig. 2 that in these years, which also had lower levels
of observed yields, the simulated yields were about
the same or even less (i.e. 1995). This was also the
case in the comparison between yields at the exper-
iment station and the model in 1987 and 1990. This
may indicate that the model overestimated yield loss
in response to water stress. It is also possible that the
model is correct, however the estimates of county yield
had errors (i.e. observations or aggregation) in these
years. The anomaly between ý and ĝ was relatively
greater in those years where average or higher than av-
erage ĝ were observed. Disease, insects or operational
problems (Table 2) may well be responsible for lower
ĝ and higher variances (Fig. 2, ±1σ vertical bars) in
these years, and are not accounted for in the model.
Table 2
Major causes of soybean yield variations in Georgia, 1988–1995
(Raymer et al., 1990, 1993, 1996)
Year Causes of yield loss
1988 Insect population built to damaging level during seed
fill; best yield since 1982
1989 Excessive rain increased diseases and weeds
1990 Insects were major problem; heavy rains from a
tropical storm damaged crop and delayed harvesting
1991 Wet conditions caused more weed and diseases;
excessive vegetative growth; foliar feeding insects
pressure increasing during seed fill
1992 Wet conditions caused more weed and diseases;
excessive vegetative growth; foliar feeding insects
pressure increasing during seed fill; yield less than
1991
1993 Dry conditions delayed and reduced planting; driest
and hottest summer leading to rapid decline in crop
conditions; weed pressure was high, but disease
pressure was low; one of the worst growing seasons
with 25-year low production
1994 Favorable weather condition throughout the year
1995 Soybean planting declined; dry conditions delayed
planting; entire growing season was drier. An
extended hot and dry period in August reduced yield.
Soybean harvest was delayed. Yield and production
was substantially lower than 1994
3.2. Yield calibration
Regional soybean yield simulations must match
yields achieved by farmers year after year under real-
istic production conditions. Several of the field prob-
lems (Table 2) were not explicitly accounted for in
the CROPGRO-soybean. Nevertheless, ý and ĝ were
highly correlated (R > 0.75) over the 17-year period
of analysis. The slope of regression line ý versus ĝ
was greater than 1 everywhere, and it was significantly
larger than 1 in 35 of the 58 grid cells at the 95% level
of confidence. These 35 grid cells are located in the
major soybean producing southern part of the state.
The yield bias between simulated and census yields
were adjusted using a yield correction factor defined
by Eq. (2). Yc varied from 0.35 to 0.60 (Fig. 3a), with
0.41–0.45 in about 50% of the area and between 0.45
to 0.50 in another 25% of the area. Generally Yc was
higher in the southern part of the state, where inten-
sive cultivation, warmer temperatures, and high rain-
fall favor disease and pests relative to cooler mountain
climate in the north. Linear regression of Yc against ĝ
showed (data not shown) that the intercept and slope
were positive and highly significant at the 95% level
of confidence. Yc was weakly but positively correlated
(R = 0.3) with ĝ, indicating presence of a higher de-
gree of farm management skill in high yielding regions
(Fig. 3a). However there was only a weak relationship
between Yc and the area devoted to cultivation.
Yc improved the goodness of fit between ý and ĝ
for grid cell R48 (Fig. 2) with RMSE of 9% relative
to Ŷ and d of 0.85. Across the state and over the
17-year-period, the goodness of fit between ŷ and ĝ
was significant in 56 out of the 58 regions at the 95%
level of confidence using a t-test of the regression
line. The CROPGRO-soybean simulated yield vari-
ances were larger than observed, which is expected
since the observed yields are spatial averages of nu-
merous farm yields within a grid cell and the model
simulations, by definition, are nine single point esti-
mates. An F-test showed that no significant differences
were detected between predicted and observed census
yield variances over the 17-year-period in 78% of grids
(i.e. 45 of 58) at the 95% confidence limit. Moen et al.
(1994) and Chipanshi et al. (1999) observed that even
after calibration, a simulation model overpredicted re-
ported census yields in years where average or higher
than average yields were obtained and underpredicted
 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of: (a) yield correction factor; (b)
17-year RMSE between predicted and reported yield.
81
Fig. 4. Comparison of 17-year mean observed (Ĝ) and predicted
(Ŷ ) soybean yields in Georgia. The 1:1 line and the regression
line between predicted and reported yield is also shown.
yields during drought years. Such a trend was not ob-
served in this study. RMSE relative to Ŷ was less than
16% (Fig. 3b). The Willmott index of agreement was
>0.5 everywhere and >0.7 in 75% of the regions.
Predicted yields Ŷ accounted for 95% of the
variance (Fig. 4) in observed census yields Ĝ with
highly significant slope (0.95), and small intercept
(−0.025). The 5% bias resulted in Ŷ being regularly
0.072 Mg ha−1 less than Ĝ. According to the paired
t-test, the Ĝ and the Ŷ were the same and could not
be rejected at the 95% of confidence level in 57 of the
58 grid cells. The prescribed factor test was success-
ful at the 1.04 level (i.e. an error level of 4%) during
the 17-year calibration period.
3.3. Validation
The grid-specific correction factor (Yc ) computed
using 1974–1990 aggregated grid cell yield ĝ was used
to correct simulated yields during the 1991–1995 test
period. The prescribed factor test error increased to
14% during the validation period due to significantly
higher errors in 1993 and 1995. Mean (median) RMSE
errors over the entire state were 24 (15), 9 (8), 44 (32),
10 (7) and 91 (85)% for 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and
1995, respectively. Median RMSE was variable over
the state, and in most areas it was much lower than
the mean RMSE. The years 1993 and 1995 were two
exceptional years dominated by water stress. In 1995,
82 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85

the area devoted to soybeans was lowest since 1974

(0.3 million ha) and thus production was spotty. Mod-
eled yield was either the same or less than observed
grid cell yield, and should not have been adjusted. As
illustrated in Fig. 5a for 1993, higher RMSE values
were localized in areas with marginal soybean produc-
tion (see Fig. 1). There was a positive and highly sig-
nificant spatial correlation between RMSE and amount
of areas reported as lost or abandoned after plant-
ings (Fig. 5b). Further investigations revealed that in
simulation, whenever there is sufficient moisture to
plant, soybeans were planted with no replanting de-
cision built into the simulation approach even when
early growth conditions are very dry. In reality, re-
planting may occur or planting may be delayed when
early rainfall is erratic. Failure of the simulations to
account for these decisions was a major reason for the
errors in 1995. Further downward correction of 1995
simulated yields caused large errors.

3.4. Annual state productions

and interannual trend

Calibrated CROPGRO-soybean predicted year-to-

year state production for the period of 22 years
(state production = 1.11 × CROPGRO production −
13.6, R 2 = 0.95, Table 3). During the period of 22
years, observed production was underestimated by
the model in 12 years. Highest reported and predicted
production of 1.5 and 1.3 million Mg were recorded
in 1982. Georgia’s soybean production in 1995 was
lowest (0.198 million Mg) since 1974; predicted pro-
duction was also lowest in 1995 (0.1 million Mg).
Deviation in production defined as the predicted
(observed) production minus the mean predicted (ob-
served) production over the test period was less than
20% in 18 out of the 22 years. Mean absolute dif-
ference between deviations was 71 Mg, which was
not significantly different (p = 0.05). The model
correctly predicted that 20 of 22 years observed pos-
itive and negative deviations from mean production.
In commercial applications, it is often important for
commodity traders to determine how a particular year
will be relative to previous years in developing pur-
chasing or selling decisions. There may thus be an Fig. 5. Mean RMSE in 1993 (a) and percentage of planted area
advantage for using models for yield/production fore- abandoned (b) in different parts of Georgia.
casting to compliment statistical techniques. Models
can integrate the effects of weather and stresses on
 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85 83

Table 3
Annual predicted and observed soybean production, deviations from the 1974–1995 mean production, and absolute deviation
Year Production (×1000 Mg) Predicted Observed Absolute
deviation (Mg) deviation (Mg) deviation (Mg)
Predicted Observed

1974 634 574 19 −94 113

1975 766 736 151 68 83
1976 508 518 −107 −150 43
1977 624 556 9 −112 121
1978 599 757 −16 89 105
1979 1238 1352 623 684 61
1980 554 653 −61 −15 46
1981 975 1076 360 408 48
1982 1341 1574 726 906 180
1983 767 1059 152 391 239
1984 892 1011 277 343 66
1985 938 929 323 261 62
1986 423 388 −192 −280 88
1987 356 404 −259 −264 5
1988 502 555 −113 −113 0
1989 736 706 121 38 83
1990 217 246 −398 −422 24
1991 350 382 −265 −286 21
1992 453 450 −162 −218 56
1993 159 198 −456 −470 14
1994 392 373 −223 −295 72
1995 103 198 −512 −470 42
Average 615 668 71

growth processes during the season, thus accounting
for within-season impacts of stresses.
4. Conclusions
An approach based on CROPGRO-soybean sim-
ulated regional yield was developed using VEMAP
digital spatial database. The approach was evaluated
using historical county data in Georgia aggregated to
0.5◦ grid cells compatible with the VEMAP database.
Yield bias correction was required to account for ef-
fect of stresses not included in CROPGRO as well
as aggregation in inputs and outputs due to substan-
tial mismatch between spatial and temporal scales of
available data and model input needs. Yield correction
factors reduced bias between simulated and aggre-
gated census yield from 57 to 11%. The yield correc-
tion factors indicate the extent of yield gap between
actual and achievable yields currently present due to
uncontrolled stresses. The yield correction factor was
uniform over a large part of the state. This may imply
that although the conditions simulated may not consis-
tently (year-to-year or region-to-region) describe the
actual combination of inputs over time and space, it
did find the optimal “regional” yield correction factor.
Variations in Yc across the state showed that farms in
highly cultivated areas were better managed than those
in low production areas. Error analysis revealed that
RMSE values were sensitive to errors in individual
years. Better yield correction procedure and/or accu-
rate information on planting dates could reduce errors.
The CROPGRO-soybean accounted for year-to-year
yield variability as well as long-term mean yields
which are important in climate change research. This
was confirmed by the prescribed factor test error of
14%. The calibrated model also predicted relative
yield trends with more than 70% precision.
The procedure developed could be used to adjust
simulated yields in regional climate change studies
by taking into account regional differences in yield
reducing factors. This would give yields that are in line
84 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
with those obtained by farmers in different parts of the
region. The procedure developed could also be used
to realistically explore the value of seasonal climate
forecasting on decisions at a regional scale.
Further model improvements are needed to account
for other loss factors (i.e. disease, insects, weeds,
harvesting, flooding, etc.). Research should be con-
centrated towards building dynamic crop simulation
models that account for these losses during the sea-
son, minimizing the need for calibration, and also
on innovative cost-effective technologies to provide
accurate and timely model inputs (soils, weather, pest
outbreaks). Currently, historical yields are available
for entire counties, but not for individual soils or soil
associations. Thus, there is a mismatch between data
available for crop yields and inputs needed to account
for the spatial variability that occurs over large areas.
References
Boote, K.J., Tollenaar, M., 1994. Modeling genetic yield poten-
tial. In: Boote, K.J., Bennett, J.M., Sinclair, T.R., Paulsen,
G.M. (Eds.), Physiology and Determination of Crop Yield.
ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 533–565.
Boote, K.J., Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Wilkerson, G.G., 1997.
Evaluation of the CROPGRO-soybean model over a wide range
of experiments. In: Kropff, M.J., Teng, P.S., Agarwal, P.K.,
Bouma, J., Bouman, B.A.M., Jones, J.W., van Laar, H.H. (Eds.),
Systems Approaches for Sustainable Agricultural Development:
Applications of Systems Approaches at the Field Level. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 113–133.
Boote, K.J., Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., 1998. Simulation of
crop growth: CROPGRO model. In: Peart, R.M., Curry, R.B.
(Eds.), Agricultural Systems Modeling and Simulation. Marcel
Dekker, New York, pp. 651–692.
Chipanshi, A.C., Ripley, E.A., Lawford, R.G., 1999. Large-scale
simulation of wheat yield in semi-arid environments using a
crop-growth model. Agron. Syst. 59, 57–66.
Curry, R.B., Jones, J.W., Boote, K.J., Peart, R.M., Allen Jr.,
L.H., 1995. Response of soybeans to predicted climate change
in the USA. In: Rosenzweig, C., Allen Jr., L.H., Jones,
J.W., Tsuji, G.Y., Hildebrand, P. (Eds.), Climate Change and
Agriculture: Analysis of Potential International Impacts. ASA
Special Publication No. 59. American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, WI, pp. 163–181.
Egli, D.B., Bruening, L.H., 1992. Planting date and soybean yield:
evaluation of environmental effects with a crop simulation
model: SOYGRO. Agric. For. Meteorol. 62, 19–29.
Hansen, J.W., Jones, J.W., 2000. Scaling-up crop models for
climate variability applications. Agron. Syst. 65, 43–72.
Haskett, J.D., Pachepsky, Y.A., Acock, B., 1995. Estimation of
soybean yield at county and state level using GLYCIM: a case
study of Iowa. Agron. J. 87, 926–931.
Hollinger, S.E., Ehler, E.J., Carlson, R.E., 2001. ENSO midwestern
United States corn and soybean yield responses to changing El
Niño-southern oscillation conditions during the growing season.
In: Rosenzweig, C., Boote, K.J., Hollinger, S., Iglesias, A.,
Phillips, J. (Eds.), Impacts of El Niño and Climate Variability
on Agriculture. ASA Special Publication No. 63. American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 33–56.
Hoogenboom, G., Jones, J.W., Wilkens, P.W., Batchelor, W.D.,
Bowen, W.T., Hunt, L.A., Pickering, N.B., Singh, U., Godwin,
D.C., Baer, B., Boote, K.J., Ritchie, J.T., White, J.W.,
1994. Crop models. In: Tsuji, G.Y., Uehara, G., Balas, S.
(Eds.), DSSAT V3. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii,
pp. 95–244.
Jones, J.W., Boote, K.J., Jagtap, S.S., Hoogenboom, G., Wilkerson,
G.G., 1989. SOYGRO V5.42 Soybean Crop Growth Simulation
Model: Users Guide. Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Journal No. 8304. Agricultural Engineering Department and
Agronomy Department University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611. IBSNAT Project. Department of Agronomy and Soil
Science, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Jones, C.A., Bland, W.L., Ritchie, J.T., Williams, J.R., 1991.
Simulation of root growth. In: Hanks, R.J., Ritchie, J.T. (Eds.),
Modeling Plant and Soil Systems. ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison,
WI, pp. 91–123.
Jones, J.W., Jagtap, S.S., Boote, K.J., 1999. Climate change:
implications for soybean yield and management in the USA.
In: Proceedings of the World Soybean Research Conference
VI, August 4–7, 1999, Chicago, IL.
Kern, S.J., 1994. Spatial pattern of soil organic carbon in the
contiguous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 439–455.
Kern, S.J., 1995. Geographic pattern of soil water holding capacity
in the contiguous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59,
1126–1133.
Kittel, T.G.F., Rosenbloom, N.A., Painter, T.H., Schimel, D.S.,
VEMAP Modeling Participants, 1995. The VEMAP integrated
database for modeling United States ecosystem/vegetation
sensitivity to climate change. J. Biogeogr. 22 (4–5), 857–862.
Kunkel, K.E., Hollinger, S.E., 1991. Operational large area corn
and soybean yield estimation. Preprints. In: Proceedings of
the 20th Conference on Agricultural and Forest Meteorology.
American Meteorological Society, Boston, 4 pp.
Mavromatis, T., Boote, K.J., Jones, J.W., Irmak, A., Shinde, D.,
Hoogenboom, G., 2001. Developing genetic coefficients from
crop simulation models using data from crop performance trials.
Crop Sci. 41, 40–51.
McCormick Myers, M.D., 1994. A quality assessment of
near real-time precipitation data used to make crop yield
forecasts. USDA–NASS Research Division Research Report
No. SRB-9403, US Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
Moen, T.N., Kaiser, H.M., Riha, S.J., 1994. Regional yield
estimation using a crop simulation model: concepts, methods,
and validation. Agron. Syst. 46, 79–92.
NASS, 1997. Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for the US Field
Crops. Agricultural Handbook No. 628. National Agricultural
Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
Parrish, R.S., Smith, C.N., 1990. A method for testing whether
model predictions fall within a prescribed factor of true values,
 S.S. Jagtap, J.W. Jones / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 73–85
with an application to pesticide leaching. Ecol. Model. 51, 69–
72.
Paz, J.O., Batchelor, W.D., Colvin, T.S., Logsdon, S.D., Kaspar,
T.C., Karlen, D.L., 1998. Calibration of a crop growth model
to predict spatial yield variability. Trans. ASAE 41, 1527–
1534.
Raymer, P.L., Day, J.L., Gipson, R.D., 1990. 1989 Field crops
performance tests. Research Report No. 589. University of
Georgia, Athens.
Raymer, P.L., Day, J.L., Bennet, R.B., Baker, S.H., Branch,
W.D., Stephenson, M.G., 1993. 1992 Field crops performance
tests: soybeans, peanuts, cotton, tobacco, sorghum, and summer
annual forages. Research Report No. 618. University of Georgia,
Athens.
Raymer, P.L., Day, J.L., Coy, A.E., Baker, S.H., Branch, W.D.,
Stephenson, M.G., 1996. 1995 field crops performance tests:
soybean, peanut, cotton, tobacco, sorghum, grain millet, and
summer annual forages. Research Report No. 639. University
of Georgia, Athens.
Richardson, C.W., 1981. Stochastic simulation of daily precipi-
tation, temperature and solar radiation. Water Resourc. Res. 17,
182–190.
Ritchie, J.T., Crum, J., 1989. Converting soil survey charac-
terization into IBSNAT crop model input. In: Bouma, J.,
Bregt, A.K. (Eds.), Land Qualities in Space and Time. Pudoc,
Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 155–167.
Ritchie, J.T., Gerakis, A., Sileiman, A., 1999. Simple model to
estimate field-measured soil water limits. Trans. ASAE 42,
1609–1614.
85
Rosenthal, W.D., Hammer, G.L., Butler, D., 1998. Predicting
regional sorghum production in Australia using spatial data and
crop simulation modelling. Agric. For. Meteorol. 91, 263–274.
Rosenzweig, C., Hillel, D., 1998. Climate Change and the Global
Harvest. Oxford University Press, New York, 324 pp.
Running, S.W., Nemani, R.R., Hungerford, R.D., 1987.
Extrapolation of synoptic meteorological data in mountainous
terrain and its use for simulating forest evapotranspiration and
photosynthesis. Can. J. For. Res. 17, 472–483.
Supit, I., 1997. Predicting national wheat yields using a crop simu-
lation and trend models. Agric. For. Meteorol. 88, 199–214.
Swanson, E.R., Nyankori, J.C., 1970. Influence of weather and
technology on cone and soybean trends. Agric. For. Meteorol.
20, 327–342.
Tsuji, G., Hoogenboom, G., Thornton, P. (Eds.), 1998. Under-
standing Options for Agricultural Production. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, 399 pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Testing for the Field
applicability of chemical exposure models. In: Proceedings of
the Workshop on field Applicability Testing, March 15–18,
1982. Exposure Modeling Committee Report, USEPA, Athens,
GA.
Van Lanen, H.A.J., van Diepen, C.A., Reinds, G.J., de Koning,
G.H.J., Bulens, J.D., Bregt, A.K., 1992. Physical land evaluation
methods and GIS to explore the crop growth potential and its
effects within European communities. Agron. Syst. 39, 307–
328.
Willmott, C.J., 1982. Some comments on the valuation of model
performance. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 63, 1309–1313.