All crop models, whether site-specific or global-gridded and regardless of crop, simulate daily crop transpiration and soil evaporation during the crop life cycle, resulting in seasonal crop water use. Modelers use several methods for predicting daily potential evapotranspiration (ET), including FAO-56, Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, Hargreaves, full energy balance, and transpiration water efficiency. They use extinction equations to partition energy to soil evaporation or transpiration, depending on leaf area index. Most models simulate soil water balance and soil-root water supply for transpiration, and limit transpiration if water uptake is insufficient, and thereafter reduce dry matter production. Comparisons among multiple crop and global gridded models in the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) show surprisingly large differences in simulated ET and crop water use for the same climatic conditions. Model intercomparisons alone are not enough to know which approaches are correct. There is an urgent need to test these models against field-observed data on ET and crop water use. It is important to test various ET modules/equations in a model platform where other aspects such as soil water balance and rooting are held constant, to avoid compensation caused by other parts of models. The CSM-CROPGRO model in DSSAT already has ET equations for Priestley-Taylor, Penman-FAO-24, Penman-Monteith-FAO-56, and an hourly energy balance approach. In this work, we added transpiration-efficiency modules to DSSAT and AgMaize models and tested the various ET equations against available data on ET, soil water balance, and season-long crop water use of soybean, fababean, maize, and other crops where runoff and deep percolation were known or zero. The different ET modules created considerable differences in predicted ET, growth, and yield
