Ma, H. et al. Time series global sensitivity analysis of genetic parameters of CERES-maize model under water stresses at different growth stages. Agric. Water Manag. 275, 108027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108027 (Jan. 2023).
Ramezani Etedali, H., Adabi, V., Gorgin, F. & Azizian, A. The probabilistic behavior of aquacrop parameters: a Monte-Carlo study. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 37 (2), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-022-02309-9 (2023).
Google Scholar
Akbari, E. et al. How global sensitive is the aquacrop model to input parameters? A case study of silage maize yield on a regional scale. Front. Agron. 6 https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2024.1304611 (Apr. 2024).
Moghim, S. & Takallou, A. An integrated assessment of extreme hydrometeorological events in Bangladesh. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 37 (7), 2541–2561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02404-5 (2023).
Google Scholar
Rezaei Aderyani, F. & Jamshid Mousavi, S. Machine learning-based rainfall forecasting in real-time optimal operation of urban drainage systems. J. Hydrol. 645, 132118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132118 (Dec. 2024).
Guo, D., Zhao, R., Xing, X. & Ma, X. Global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the AquaCrop model for maize under different irrigation and fertilizer management conditions, Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 1115–1133, Jul. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1657845
Van Hove, M. Y. C., Delghust, M. & Laverge, J. Quality assurance for building-stock energy models: a performance comparison of eleven uncertainty and sensitivity analysis methods, J. Build. Perform. Simul., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 149–175, Mar. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2023.2248063
Ghorbany, S., Hu, M. & Nouri, A. Commercial Buildings Decarbonization: Benchmarks and Strategies for the United States Sustainable Commercial Construction, (2025).
Ghorbany, S. & Hu, M. Urban embodied carbon assessment: methodology and insights from analyzing over a million buildings in Chicago. Carbon Manag. 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2024.2382993 (Dec. 2024).
Ghorbany, S. & Hu, M. A systematic framework to reduce urban embodied carbon emissions using urban scale simulation. Npj Urban Sustain. 5 (1, p. 7, ). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-025-00196-x (Mar. 2025).
Moghaddasi, P., Kerachian, R. & Sharghi, S. A stakeholder-based framework for improving the resilience of groundwater resources in arid regions. J. Hydrol. 609, 127737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127737 (Jun. 2022).
Van Hove, M. Y. C., Delghust, M. & Laverge, J. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of building-stock energy models: sampling procedure, stock size and Sobol’ convergence, J. Build. Perform. Simul., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 749–771, Nov. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2023.2201816
Confalonieri, R., Bregaglio, S. & Acutis, M. Quantifying uncertainty in crop model predictions due to the uncertainty in the observations used for calibration. Ecol. Modell. 328, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.02.013 (May 2016).
Monod, H., Naud, C. & Makowski, D. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for crop models. Working with dynamic crop models: Evaluation, analysis, parameterization, and applications, vol. 4. Accessed: Jul. 01, 2023. [Online]. (2006). Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285759148_Uncertainty_and_sensitivity_analysis_for_crop_models
Dzotsi, K. A., Basso, B. & Jones, J. W. Parameter and uncertainty Estimation for maize, peanut and cotton using the SALUS crop model. Agric. Syst. 135, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGSY.2014.12.003 (May 2015).
Makowski, D., Wallach, D., Tremblay, M., Makowski, D. & Bayesian, A. Using a bayesian approach to parameter estimation; comparison of the GLUE and MCMC methods network ‘data science for food and agriculture’ view project using a bayesian approach to parameter estimation; comparison of the GLUE and MCMC methods, (2002). https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2002007
Wallach, D., Keussayan, N., Brun, F., Lacroix, B. & Bergez, J. E. Assessing the Uncertainty when Using a Model to Compare Irrigation Strategies, Agron. J., vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 1274–1283, Sep. (2012). https://doi.org/10.2134/AGRONJ2012.0038
Varella, H., Buis, S., Launay, M. & Guérif, M. Global sensitivity analysis for choosing the main soil parameters of a crop model to be determined, Agric. Sci., vol. no. 07, pp. 949–961, Nov. 2012, (2012). https://doi.org/10.4236/AS.2012.37116
Waha, K., Huth, N., Carberry, P. & Wang, E. How model and input uncertainty impact maize yield simulations in West Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2), 024017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024017 (Feb. 2015).
Roux, S., Brun, F. & Wallach, D. Combining input uncertainty and residual error in crop model predictions: A case study on vineyards. Eur. J. Agron. 52, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2013.09.008 (Jan. 2014).
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C. & Fereres, E. Aquacrop-The FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. main algorithms and software description. Agron. J. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0140s (2009).
Google Scholar
Lorite, I. J., García-Vila, M., Santos, C., Ruiz-Ramos, M. & Fereres, E. AquaData and AquaGIS: Two computer utilities for temporal and spatial simulations of water-limited yield with AquaCrop, Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 96, pp. 227–237, Aug. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.05.010
Pawar, G. S., Kale, M. U. & Lokhande, J. N. Response of aquacrop model to different irrigation schedules for irrigated cabbage. Agric. Res. 6 (1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-016-0238-2 (Mar. 2017).
Adeboye, O. B., Schultz, B., Adekalu, K. O. & Prasad, K. Modelling of Response of the Growth and Yield of Soybean to Full and Deficit Irrigation by Using Aquacrop, Irrig. Drain., vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 192–205, Apr. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2073
Gorgin Paveh, F., Ramezani Etedali, H., Kakvand, P. & ESTIMATION OF WHEAT WATER FOOTPRINT BASED ON CRU AND AgMERRA GRIDDED DATASETS., in IV. INTERNATIONAL EURASIAN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL SCIENCES CONGRESS, p. 100. (2020).
Kakvand, P., Etedali, H. R. & Gorgin Paveh, F. Estimation of Maize Water Footprint Based on GPCC and AgCFSR Gridded Datasets, in IV International Eurasian Agriculture and Natural Sciences Congress, (2020).
Ramezani Etedali, H., Gorgin, F. & Kakvand, P. Study of the performance of two meteorological datasets in estimating the maize water footprint, a case study: Qazvin plain. Iran. J. Irrig. Drain. 15 (6), 1394–1403 (2022).
Alvar-Beltrán, J., Gobin, A., Orlandini, S. & Marta, A. D. AquaCrop parametrisation for Quinoa in arid environments. Ital. J. Agron. 16 (1), 1749. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2020.1749 (2021).
Google Scholar
Foster, T. et al. AquaCrop-OS: an open source version of fao’s crop water productivity model. Agric. Water Manag. 181, 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.11.015 (Feb. 2017).
Añel, J. A., García-Rodríguez, M. & Rodeiro, J. Current status on the need for improved accessibility to climate models code. Geosci. Model. Dev. 14 (2), 923–934. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-923-2021 (Feb. 2021).
Rahimikhoob, H., Sohrabi, T. & Delshad, M. Variance-based global sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification of the AquaCrop model parameters for basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) under different nitrogen fertilizer rates, J. Plant Nutr., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 628–645, Feb. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2023.2280142
Calera, A. et al. Nov., A procedure for obtaining green plant cover: Relation to NDVI in a case study for barley. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160010020100, vol. 22, no. 17, pp. 3357–3362, (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160010020100
Carlson, T. N. & Ripley, D. A. On the relation between NDVI, fractional vegetation cover, and leaf area index. Remote Sens. Environ. 62 (3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(97)00104-1 (Dec. 1997).
Jiang, Z. et al. Apr., Analysis of NDVI and scaled difference vegetation index retrievals of vegetation fraction, Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 366–378, (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSE.2006.01.003
Johnson, L. F. & Trout, T. J. Satellite NDVI Assisted Monitoring of Vegetable Crop Evapotranspiration in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Remote Sens. Vol. 4, Pages 439–455, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 439–455, Feb. 2012, (2012). https://doi.org/10.3390/RS4020439
Kim, D. & Kaluarachchi, J. Validating FAO aquacrop using Landsat images and regional crop information. Agric. Water Manag. 149, 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2014.10.013 (Feb. 2015).
Ramezani Etedali, H., Kalanaki, M., van Oel, P. & Gorginpaveh, F. Estimating wheat production in West Iran using a simple water footprint approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05605-2 (Nov. 2024).
Raes, D. & Leuven Univ, K. Symposium Papers 438 A gronomy, Agron. J, vol. 101, pp. 438–447, (2009). https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0140s
Ramezani Etedali, H. et al. Estimation of actual evapotranspiration and water requirements of strategic crops under different stresses. Sci. Rep. 15 (1), 7778. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-92481-z (Mar. 2025).
Matthews, J. S. A. & Lawson, T. Climate change and stomatal physiology, in Annual Plant Reviews Online, Wiley, 713–752. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119312994.apr0667. (2019).
Qiu, R., Katul, G. G., Zhang, L., Qin, S. & Jiang, X. The effects of changing environments, abiotic stresses, and management practices on cropland evapotranspiration: A review. Rev. Geophys. 63 (1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2024RG000858 (Mar. 2025).
Zhang, J. et al. Insights into the molecular mechanisms of CO2-Mediated regulation of stomatal movements. Curr. Biol. 28 (23), R1356–R1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.015 (Dec. 2018).
Toreti, A. et al. Dec., Narrowing uncertainties in the effects of elevated CO2 on crops, Nat. Food, vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 775–782, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00195-4
Ranjbar, A., Rahimikhoob, A., Ebrahimian, H. & Varavipour, M. Assessment of the AquaCrop Model for Simulating Maize Response to Different Nitrogen Stresses under Semi-arid Climate, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., vol. 50, no. 22, pp. 2899–2912, Dec. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2019.1689254
Zhou, D. et al. Evaluation of aquacrop’s ability to simulate water stress based on 2-Year case study of maize crop. Agronomy 14 (2), 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020354 (Feb. 2024).
Golabi, M. & Naseri, A. A. Assessment aquacrop model to predict the sugarcane yield and soil salinity profiles under salinity stress. Iran. J. Soil. Water Res. 4 (46), 685–694 (2015).
Gorgin Paveh, F., Ramezani Etedali, H. & Collins, B. Evaluation of CRU TS, GPCC, agmerra, and AgCFSR meteorological datasets for estimating climate and crop variables: A case study of maize in Qazvin province, Iran. J. Arid Land. 14 (12), 1361–1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-022-0108-7 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wagener, T., Camacho, L. A. & Wheater, H. S. Dynamic identifiability analysis of the transient storage model for solute transport in rivers, Accessed: Jul. 01, 2023. [Online]. (2002). Available: http://iwaponline.com/jh/article-pdf/4/3/199/392432/199.pdf
Pianosi, F., Sarrazin, F. & Wagener, T. A matlab toolbox for global sensitivity analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 70, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.04.009 (Aug. 2015).
Tan, J., Cao, J., Cui, Y., Duan, Q. & Gong, W. Comparison of the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation and Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Uncertainty Analysis of the ORYZA_V3 Model, Agron. J., vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 555–564, Mar. (2019). https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.05.0336
Tongal, H. & Booij, M. J. Quantification of parametric uncertainty of ANN models with GLUE method for different streamflow dynamics. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 31 (4), 993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1408-x (May 2017).
