SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Crop production is obtained from accurate estimates of daily carbon gain.Canopy gross photosynthesis (Pgross) can be estimated from biochemical models of photosynthesis using sun and shaded leaf portions and the amount of intercepted photosyntheticallyactive radiation (PAR).In turn, canopy daily net carbon gain can be estimated from canopy daily gross photosynthesis when canopy dark respiration (Rd) is known.
Climate change is a significant risk for agricultural production. Even under optimistic scenarios for climate mitigation action, present-day agricultural areas are likely to face significant increases in temperatures in the coming decades, in addition to changes in precipitation, cloud cover, and the frequency and duration of extreme heat, drought, and flood events (IPCC, 2013). These factors will affect the agricultural system at the global scale by impacting cultivation regimes, prices, trade, and food security (Nelson et al., 2014a). Global-scale evaluation of crop productivity is a major challenge for climate impact and adaptation assessment. Rigorous global assessments that are able to inform planning and policy will benefit from consistent use of models, input data, and assumptions across regions and time that use mutually agreed protocols designed by the modeling community. To ensure this consistency, large-scale assessments are typically performed on uniform spatial grids, with spatial resolution of typically 10 to 50 km, over specified time-periods. Many distinct crop models and model types have been applied on the global scale to assess productivity and climate impacts, often with very different results (Rosenzweig et al., 2014). These models are based to a large extent on field-scale crop process or ecosystems models and they typically require resolved data on weather, environmental, and farm management conditions that are lacking in many regions (Bondeau et al., 2007; Drewniak et al., 2013; Elliott et al., 2014b; Gueneau et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2007; M¨uller and Robertson, 2014; Van den Hoof et al., 2011;Waha et al., 2012; Xiong et al., 2014). Due to data limitations, the requirements of consistency, and the computational and practical limitations of running models on a large scale, a variety of simplifying assumptions must generally be made regarding prevailing management strategies on the grid scale in both the baseline and future periods. Implementation differences in these and other modeling choices contribute to significant variation among global-scale crop model assessments in addition to differences in crop model implementations that also cause large differences in site-specific crop modeling (Asseng et al., 2013; Bassu et al., 2014).
We present results from several connected efforts to apply machine learning methods to estimates of seasonal agricultural production anomalies around the world. First, we apply the XGBoost Random Forest method to fit emulators that mimic global crop models participating in the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI). These are the same models used in the agricultural sector simulations of the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). These emulators use 8 climate variables split across 5 sub-seasonal representations of the growing season for each ½ degree grid cell around the world for maize, wheat, rice and soybeans. Emulators are useful for estimating conditions that have not already been simulated by GGCMI (e.g., in a seasonal prediction model) and also to diagnose model differences and capabilities. For example, emulators of the pDSSAT maize model tend to be more reliant on mean temperatures than the LPJmL model, and few models have strong responses to cold extremes. Second, we use a similar XGBoost approach to fit empirical models for national production data for the top 20 producing countries according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Models utilize both climate observations and the GGCM models as predictors, resulting in skillful models for many (but not all) top producing-countries. The patterns of climate and crop model features selected indicate regions and systems that are better or worse simulated by the GGCMs. For example, information in cold extreme predictors is often combined with GGCM output predictors to provide sensitivity that models may underrepresent.
Crop models are often employed to project crop yields under changing conditions such as global warming and associated management change for adaptation. Multi-model ensembles are promoted to enhance the robustness of projections, but questions remain on what causes often large differences between projections of individual models. Global Gridded Crop Models (GGCMs) are especially exposed to this question when applied for assessing climate change impacts, adaptation, environmental impacts of agricultural production, because their results are used in downstream analyses, such as in integrated assessment or economic modeling for projecting future land-use change. Even though global gridded crop models are often based on detailed field-scale models or have implemented similar modeling principles in other ecosystem models, global-scale models are subject to substantial uncertainties from both model structure and parametrization as well as from calibration and input data quality. AgMIP’s Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) has thus set out to intercompare GGCMs in order to evaluate model performance, describe model uncertainties, identify inconsistencies within the ensemble and underlying reasons, and to ultimately improve models and modeling capacities. In phase 2 of the GGCMI activities, 12 modeling groups followed a modeling protocol that asked for up to 1404 31-year global simulations at 0.5 arc-degree spatial resolution to assess models’ sensitivities to changes in carbon dioxide (C; 4 different levels) temperature (T; 7 different offset levels), water supply (W; 9 levels), and nitrogen (N; 3 levels), the so-called CTWN experiment (Franke et al. 2020; http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2315-2020). We here present analyses of model response types using impact response surfaces along the C, T, W, and N dimensions, respectively and collectively. Doing so, we can understand differences in simulated responses per driver rather than aggregated changes in yields. We find that models’ sensitivities to the individual driver dimensions are substantially different and often more different across models than across regions. A cluster analysis finds regional and model-specific patterns. There is some agreement across models with respect to the spatial patterns of response types but strong differences in the distribution of response type clusters across models suggests that models need to undergo further scrutiny. We suggest establishing standards in model process evaluation not only against historical dynamics but also against dedicated experiments across the CTWN dimensions.
Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor.
Mathematical models that simulate crop growth in response to environmental conditions and management practices are essential tools for exploring agriculture-based strategies to address food security and environmental sustainability challenges. Early applications of crop models focused on supporting farmers in making management decisions. Applications have since expanded to estimating future impacts on local and global food production from changing climates. Emerging applications of crop models aim to leverage how these models integrate plant processes across biological scales to identify engineering or breeding strategies that account for environmentally-responsive dynamics at field scales and for exploring solutions to improve sustainability. In this review, we highlight recent studies across these four broad application areas and highlight potential future directions for the crop modeling field.
Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) combine agronomic or plant growth models with gridded spatial input data to estimate spatially explicit crop yields and agricultural externalities at the global scale. Differences in GGCM outputs arise from the use of different biophysical models, setups, and input data. GGCM ensembles are frequently employed to bracket uncertainties in impact studies without investigating the causes of divergence in outputs. This study explores differences in maize yield estimates from five GGCMs based on the public domain field-scale model Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) that participate in the AgMIP Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison initiative. Albeit using the same crop model, the GGCMs differ in model version, input data, management assumptions, parameterization, and selection of subroutines affecting crop yield estimates via cultivar distributions, soil attributes, and hydrology among others. The analyses reveal inter-annual yield variability and absolute yield levels in the EPIC-based GGCMs to be highly sensitive to soil parameterization and crop management. All GGCMs show an intermediate performance in reproducing reported yields with a higher skill if a static soil profile is assumed or sufficient plant nutrients are supplied. An in-depth comparison of setup domains for two EPIC-based GGCMs shows that GGCM performance and plant stress responses depend substantially on soil parameters and soil process parameterization, i.e. hydrology and nutrient turnover, indicating that these often neglected domains deserve more scrutiny. For agricultural impact assessments, employing a GGCM ensemble with its widely varying assumptions in setups appears the best solution for coping with uncertainties from lack of comprehensive global data on crop management, cultivar distributions and coefficients for agro-environmental processes. However, the underlying assumptions require systematic specifications to cover representative agricultural systems and environmental conditions. Furthermore, the interlinkage of parameter sensitivity from various domains such as soil parameters, nutrient turnover coefficients, and cultivar specifications highlights that global sensitivity analyses and calibration need to be performed in an integrated manner to avoid bias resulting from disregarded core model domains. Finally, relating evaluations of the EPIC-based GGCMs to a wider ensemble based on individual core models shows that structural differences outweigh in general differences in configurations of GGCMs based on the same model, and that the ensemble mean gains higher skill from the inclusion of structurally different GGCMs. Although the members of the wider ensemble herein do not consider crop-soil-management interactions, their sensitivity to nutrient supply indicates that findings for the EPIC-based sub-ensemble will likely become relevant for other GGCMs with the progressing inclusion of such processes.
Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but so far there is no general framework on how to assess model performance. Here we evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that global gridded crop models (GGCMs) show mixed skill in reproducing time series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producing countries by many GGCMs and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that other modeling groups can also test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark.
Concerns over climate change are motivated in large part because of their impact on human society. Assessing the effect of that uncertainty on specific potential impacts is demanding, since it requires a systematic survey over both climate and impacts models. We provide a comprehensive evaluation of uncertainty in projected crop yields for maize, spring and winter wheat, rice, and soybean, using a suite of nine crop models and up to 45 CMIP5 and 34 CMIP6 climate projections for three different forcing scenarios. To make this task computationally tractable, we use a new set of statistical crop model emulators. We find that climate and crop models contribute about equally to overall uncertainty. While the ranges of yield uncertainties under CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections are similar, median impact in aggregate total caloric production is typically more negative for the CMIP6 projections (+1% to −19%) than for CMIP5 (+5% to −13%). In the first half of the 21st century and for individual crops is the spread across crop models typically wider than that across climate models, but we find distinct differences between crops: globally, wheat and maize uncertainties are dominated by the crop models, but soybean and rice are more sensitive to the climate projections. Climate models with very similar global mean warming can lead to very different aggregate impacts so that climate model uncertainties remain a significant contributor to agricultural impacts uncertainty. These results show the utility of large-ensemble methods that allow comprehensively evaluating factors affecting crop yields or other impacts under climate change. The crop model ensemble used here is unbalanced and pulls the assumption that all projections are equally plausible into question. Better methods for consistent model testing, also at the level of individual processes, will have to be developed and applied by the crop modeling community.
Climate change is expected to alter a multitude of factors important to agricultural systems, including pests, diseases, weeds, extreme climate events, water resources, soil degradation, and socio-economic pressures. Changes to carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]), temperature, and water (CTW) will be the primary drivers of change in crop growth and agricultural systems. Therefore, establishing the CTW-change sensitivity of crop yields is an urgent research need and warrants diverse methods of investigation. Crop models provide a biophysical, process-based tool to investigate crop responses across varying environmental conditions and farm management techniques, and have been applied in climate impact assessment by using a variety of methods (White et al., 2011, and references therein). However, there is a significant amount of divergence between various crop models' responses to CTW changes (Rotter et al., 2011). While the application of a site-based crop model is relatively simple, the coordination of such agricultural impact assessments on larger scales requires consistent and timely contributions from a large number of crop modelers, each time a new global climate model (GCM) scenario or downscaling technique is created. A coordinated, global effort to rapidly examine CTW sensitivity across multiple crops, crop models, and sites is needed to aid model development and enhance the assessment of climate impacts (Deser et al., 2012). To fulfill this need, the Coordinated Climate-Crop Modeling Project (C3MP) (Ruane et al., 2014) was initiated within the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP; Rosenzweig et al., 2013). The submitted results from C3MP Phase 1 (February 15, 2013-December 31, 2013) are currently being analyzed. This chapter serves to present and update the C3MP protocols, discuss the initial participation and general findings, comment on needed adjustments, and describe continued and future development. AgMIP aims to improve substantially the climate, crop, and economic simulation tools that are used to characterize the agricultural sector, to assess future world food security under changing climate conditions, and to enhance adaptation capacity both globally and regionally. To understand better and improve the modeled crop responses, AgMIP has conducted detailed crop model intercomparisons at closely observed field sites for wheat (Asseng et al., 2013), rice (Li et al., in review), maize (Bassu et al., 2014), and sugarcane (Singels et al., 2013). A coordinated modeling exercise was one of the original motivations for AgMIP, and C3MP provides rapid estimation of crop responses to CO2, water, and temperature (CTW) changes, adding dimension and insight into the crop model intercomparisons, while facilitating interactions within the global community of modelers. C3MP also contributes a fast-track, multi-model climate sensitivity assessment for the AgMIP climate and crop modeling teams on Research Track 2 (Fig. 1), which seeks to understand the impact of projected climatic changes on crop production and food security (Rosenzweig et al., 2013; Ruane et al., 2014).
Climate change is projected to push the limits of cropping systems and has the potential to disrupt the agricultural sector from local to global scales. This article introduces the Coordinated Climate-Crop Modeling Project (C3MP), an initiative of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) to engage a global network of crop modelers to explore the impacts of climate change via an investigation of crop responses to changes in carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]), temperature, and water. As a demonstration of the C3MP protocols and enabled analyses, we apply the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) CROPGRO-Peanut crop model for Henry County, Alabama, to evaluate responses to the range of plausible [CO2], temperature changes, and precipitation changes projected by climate models out to the end of the 21st century. These sensitivity tests are used to derive crop model emulators that estimate changes in mean yield and the coefficient of variation for seasonal yields across a broad range of climate conditions, reproducing mean yields from sensitivity test simulations with deviations of ca. 2% for rain-fed conditions. We apply these statistical emulators to investigate how peanuts respond to projections from various global climate models, time periods, and emissions scenarios, finding a robust projection of modest (<10%) median yield losses in the middle of the 21st century accelerating to more severe (>20%) losses and larger uncertainty at the end of the century under the more severe representative concentration pathway (RCP8.5). This projection is not substantially altered by the selection of the AgMERRA global gridded climate dataset rather than the local historical observations, differences between the Third and Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3 and CMIP5), or the use of the delta method of climate impacts analysis rather than the C3MP impacts response surface and emulator approach.
Predicting rice (Oryza sativa) productivity under future climates is important for global food security. Ecophysiological crop models in combination with climate model outputs are commonly used in yield prediction, but uncertainties associated with crop models remain largely unquantified. We evaluated 13 rice models against multi-year experimental yield data at four sites with diverse climatic conditions in Asia and examined whether different modeling approaches on major physiological processes attribute to the uncertainties of prediction to field measured yields and to the uncertainties of sensitivity to changes in temperature and CO2 concentration [CO2]. We also examined whether a use of an ensemble of crop models can reduce the uncertainties. Individual models did not consistently reproduce both experimental and regional yields well, and uncertainty was larger at the warmest and coolest sites. The variation in yield projections was larger among crop models than variation resulting from 16 global climate model-based scenarios. However, the mean of predictions of all crop models reproduced experimental data, with an uncertainty of less than 10 percent of measured yields. Using an ensemble of eight models calibrated only for phenology or five models calibrated in detail resulted in the uncertainty equivalent to that of the measured yield in well-controlled agronomic field experiments. Sensitivity analysis indicates the necessity to improve the accuracy in predicting both biomass and harvest index in response to increasing [CO2] and temperature.
We present results from the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase I, which aligned 14 global gridded crop models (GGCMs) and 11 climatic forcing datasets (CFDs) in order to understand how the selection of climate data affects simulated historical crop productivity of maize, wheat, rice and soybean. Results show that CFDs demonstrate mean biases and differences in the probability of extreme events, with larger uncertainty around extreme precipitation and in regions where observational data for climate and crop systems are scarce. Countries where simulations correlate highly with reported FAO national production anomalies tend to have high correlations across most CFDs, whose influence we isolate using multi-GGCM ensembles for each CFD. Correlations compare favorably with the climate signal detected in other studies, although production in many countries is not primarily climate-limited (particularly for rice). Bias-adjusted CFDs most often were among the highest model-observation correlations, although all CFDs produced the highest correlation in at least one top-producing country. Analysis of larger multi-CFD-multi-GGCM ensembles (up to 91 members) shows benefits over the use of smaller subset of models in some regions and farming systems, although bigger is not always better. Our analysis suggests that global assessments should prioritize ensembles based on multiple crop models over multiple CFDs as long as a top-performing CFD is utilized for the focus region.
The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) has the goal of using multiple crop models to evaluate climate impacts on agricultural production and food security in developed and developing countries. There are several major limitations that must be overcome to achieve this goal, including the need to train AgMIP regional research team (RRT) crop modelers to use models other than the ones they are currently familiar with, plus the need to harmonize and interconvert the disparate input file formats used for the various models. Two activities were followed to address these shortcomings among AgMIP RRTs to enable them to use multiple models to evaluate climate impacts on crop production and food security. We designed and conducted courses in which participants trained on two different sets of crop models, with emphasis on the model of least experience. In a second activity, the AgMIP IT group created templates for inputting data on soils, management, weather, and crops into AgMIP harmonized databases, and developed translation tools for converting the harmonized data into files that are ready for multiple crop model simulations. The strategies for creating and conducting the multi-model course and developing entry and translation tools are reviewed in this chapter.
Crop models are useful tools for simulating agricultural systems that require continued model development and testing to increase their robustness and improve how they describe our current understanding of processes. Coordinated and “blind” evaluation of multiple models using same protocols and experimental datasets provides unique opportunities to further improve models and enhance their reliability. For soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], there has been limited coordinated multi-model evaluations for the simulation of in-season plant growth dynamics. We evaluated ten dynamic soybean crop models for their simulation of in-season plant growth using data from five experiments conducted in Argentina, Brazil, France, and USA. We evaluated models after a Blind (using only phenology data) and a Full calibration (with in-season and end-of-season variables). Calibration reduced model uncertainty by reducing standard bias for the simulation of in-season variables (biomass, leaf, pod, and stem weights, and leaf area index, LAI). However, we found that most models had difficulty in reproducing leaf growth dynamics, with normalized root mean squared error (nRMSE) of 56% for leaf weight and 43% for LAI (across locations and models after Full calibration). Models with different levels of complexity and experience were capable of simulating final seed yield at maturity with reasonable accuracy (nRMSE of 8–31% after Full calibration). However, the nRMSE for pod weight (of 17–64% after Full calibration) was two-fold larger than that of seed yield. Moreover, the models differed in how they simulated timing from sowing to beginning seed growth (47–93 days) and effective seed filling period (18–54 days), owing to model structural differences in defining the reproductive developmental stages. Overall, we identified the following processes that can benefit from further model improvement: leaf expansion and senescence, reproductive phenology, and partitioning to reproductive growth. Simulation of pod wall tissue and individual seed cohorts is another aspect that many models currently lack. Model improvement can benefit from high-temporal resolution experimental datasets that concurrently account for phenology, plant growth, and partitioning. Further, we recommend collecting reproductive phenology in the field consistent with actual dry matter allocation to organs in the models and collecting multiple observations of seed and pod weight to aid model improvement for simulation of seed growth and yield formation.
Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields. Process-based crop models, which represent plant physiological and soil processes, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate and management conditions not sampled in the historical record and new locations to which cultivation may shift. However, process-based crop models differ in many critical details, and their responses to different interacting factors remain only poorly understood. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase 2 experiment, an activity of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to provide a systematic parameter sweep focused on climate change factors and their interaction with overall soil fertility, to allow both evaluating model behavior and emulating model responses in impact assessment tools. In this paper we describe the GGCMI Phase 2 experimental protocol and its simulation data archive. A total of 12 crop models simulate five crops with systematic uniform perturbations of historical climate, varying CO2, temperature, water supply, and applied nitrogen (“CTWN”) for rainfed and irrigated agriculture, and a second set of simulations represents a type of adaptation by allowing the adjustment of growing season length. We present some crop yield results to illustrate general characteristics of the simulations and potential uses of the GGCMI Phase 2 archive. For example, in cases without adaptation, modeled yields show robust decreases to warmer temperatures in almost all regions, with a nonlinear dependence that means yields in warmer baseline locations have greater temperature sensitivity. Inter-model uncertainty is qualitatively similar across all the four input dimensions but is largest in high-latitude regions where crops may be grown in the future.
Statistical emulation allows combining advantageous features of statistical and process-based crop models for understanding the effects of future climate changes on crop yields. We describe here the development of emulators for nine process-based crop models and five crops using output from the Global Gridded Model Intercomparison Project (GGCMI) Phase 2. The GGCMI Phase 2 experiment is designed with the explicit goal of producing a structured training dataset for emulator development that samples across four dimensions relevant to crop yields: atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, temperature, water supply, and nitrogen inputs (CTWN). Simulations are run under two different adaptation assumptions: that growing seasons shorten in warmer climates, and that cultivar choice allows growing seasons to remain fixed. The dataset allows emulating the climatological-mean yield response of all models with a simple polynomial in mean growing-season values. Climatological-mean yields are a central metric in climate change impact analysis; we show here that they can be captured without relying on interannual variations. In general, emulation errors are negligible relative to differences across crop models or even across climate model scenarios; errors become significant only in some marginal lands where crops are not currently grown. We demonstrate that the resulting GGCMI emulators can reproduce yields under realistic future climate simulations, even though the GGCMI Phase 2 dataset is constructed with uniform CTWN offsets, suggesting that the effects of changes in temperature and precipitation distributions are small relative to those of changing means. The resulting emulators therefore capture relevant crop model responses in a lightweight, computationally tractable form, providing a tool that can facilitate model comparison, diagnosis of interacting factors affecting yields, and integrated assessment of climate impacts.
Global food security is one of the most pressing issues of the current century, particularly for developing nations. Agricultural simulation models can be a key component in testing new technologies, seeds and cultivars etc. However, inaccurate input information, model related errors and the mode of implementation can also add to model uncertainties. In this study, the crop model is implemented in two separate fashions: a)gridded (GriDSSAT model) and b) using random spatial ensembles (RHEAS model). This is done in the Southeastern US to evaluate and understand the modelperformance over a region data availabilities. Once the model performance is assessed, multiple satellite based earth observation parameters such as soil moisture, vegetation index etc. can be assimilated into crop models to reduce input and model related uncertainties particularly in data limited regions. In this study, the National Agricultural Statistical Services (NASS) reported yield data at county levels are used for comparison andvalidation purposes. The GriDSSAT model estimation of corn yields in comparison with the reported NASS yields showed an overall RMSD of nearly 3720 (kg/ha) whereas RMSD for the RHEAS model implementation was 3550 (kg/ha). Overall the GriDSSAT model had negative bias of nearly 2400 kg/ha (except for 2013) while RHEAS had a slight positive bias of 400 kg/ha (approx.).