Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 9 Number 11 (2020) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.911.038 Yield Gap Analysis under Different Water and Nitrogen Management Practices in Wheat Crop using CSM-CROPSIM-CERES –Wheat Model in Tarai Region of Uttarakhand Shweta Pokhariyal*, Ravi Kiran, A.S. Nain and Amit Bijlwan Department of Agrometeorology, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Wheat, CSMCROPSIM-CERESWheat model, Abiotic stress, Genetic coefficients, Yield gap Article Info Accepted: 04 October 2020 Available Online: 10 November 2020 Water and nitrogen are two primary limiting factors for wheat yield. In consonance with this, field experiment was conducted at Norman Ernest Borlaug Crop Research Centre in Pantnagar (Uttarakhand) during Rabi season of 2017-18 to analyze the performance of CSM-CROPSIM-CERES-wheat model for wheat cultivar (PBW-502) grown under different stress conditions characterized by inducing different water and nitrogen levels. 27 treatment combinations consisted of 3 DOS (12 th December, 22nd December and 02nd January), 3 irrigation levels (100% irrigations, 75% irrigations and 50% irrigations) and 3 nitrogen levels (100%, 75% and 50% of recommended nitrogen doses) laid in a Factorial RBD with 3 replications. The results revealed good agreement between simulated and measured data of crop phenology, LAI and grain yield. The simulated and observed yield ranged between 1.5 to 4.95 t/ha and 1.42 to 4.73 t/ha, respectively. RMSE was found to be 11.61% with R2 value of 0.90, which is found significant. The model performance was validated with the experimental dataset of year 2007-2008 by using genetic coefficients obtained during calibration process. Degree of stress in wheat crop was analyzed in terms of yield gap, which was found higher (68. 28 %) under lowest levels of irrigation (2 irrigation) and nitrogen (75 kg ha-1). favorable soil conditions, optimum water and fertilizer input, and good management practices (Cui et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2013). Overall, the increase in wheat yield is more pertaining to substantial rise in irrigation and nitrogen application. Introduction Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the most important cereal crop all over the world and it ranks firstboth in aspects of area (225.07 million hectares) and production which was about 735.70 million tonne during 2015-2016 (FAO, 2017). In India, wheat is second most important cereal crop with production of 93.50 million tonnes after rice and ranks second in the queue after China (FAOSTAT, 2016). Highest yield is usually attained with Decision making and planning in agriculture essentially execute various model-based decision support systems in relation to changing climate scenarios and management activities. The models applied needs to be 317 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 thoroughly calibrated for the particular set of conditions and then only they can be applied to assess the impact of different environmental and management conditions in crop yield. DSSAT (Decision support system for Agrotechnology transfer) is a software application program which comprising of variety of crop simulation model has been frequently used to assess the yield response under different environmental conditions (Rinaldi, 2004; Yang et al., 2010). Crop models simulate growth and development processes as a function of soil, weather, management practices and crop cultivar. Materials and Methods Study site In order to evaluate the performance of CROPSIM-CERES-Wheat crop simulation model under stress conditions for a wheat variety (PBW-502), a 3-factorial randomized block design with 81experimental plots was laid out at Norman Ernest Borlaug Crop Research Centre (NEBCRC), Pantnagar (Uttarakhand) during Rabi season of 2017-18. Eighty one experimental plots consists of 3 dates of sowing [12th December (D1), 22nd December (D2) and 02nd January (D3)], 3 levels of irrigation [100% irrigations (I1), 75% irrigations (I2) and 50% irrigations (I3)] and 3 levels of nitrogen [100% (N1), 75% (N2) and 50% (N3) of recommended nitrogen doses] with 3 replications. Considering the capability of CERES-wheat for determining quantitative effects of varied environmental and managerial parameters on production of wheat, by choosing different strategies such assessing different varieties, different planting dates, assessing the amount and time of nitrogen application and simulation may evaluate the effects of these factors with the long term meteorological data, growth, reproduction and yield of wheat in the regional and national levels (Boote et al., 2001). After a thorough evaluation of CSM-CROPSIM-CERES-Wheat, the model was able to judiciously quantify wheat development, growth and yield responses to within-season variability in plant population and nitrogen application rate and to seasonal variation in weather and management practices (Thorp et al., 2010). In the recent years, DSSAT has been extensively utilized to analyze yield gap under different water and nitrogen limiting conditions (Lobell and Monasterio, 2007; Anderson, 2010; Torabi et al., 2011). Considering the convenience aspect, in rest of the document, treatment combinations will be described on the basis of abbreviations used for them, e.g., I1N1D1 implies first level of irrigation (100% = full irrigation), nitrogen (100%= 150 kg N/ha) and date of sowing (first sowing = 12th December). The description of number of irrigation and amount of nitrogen doses is given in Table 1. Model description In this study, we deployed CERES-Wheat cropping system model (CSM-CERES-Wheat model) embedded under DSSAT software application program for simulation of wheat performance under different stress conditions induced by varying water and nutrient (specifically in terms of nitrogen). DSSAT model primarily operated on the 3 databases; one corresponds to the weather and soil information of the area under study, as well as agronomic management and physiological traits of each variety selected for the study. The objective of the present study is to simulate yield of wheat cultivar (PBW-502) under different irrigation and nitrogen levels using CSM-CROPSIM-CERES-Wheat model, and also to assess stress levels through yield gap analysis. 318 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 such as anthesis date, flowering data, number of spikes m-2 and maturity data (Hoogenboom et al., 2003) while WHT file incorporates the progression of the field data over time such as growth analysis data. Weather and soil database Laboratory measurement of soil’s physicochemical properties from a portion of the experimental area at different depths were included in the DSSAT soil. sol file and was used to construct soil database. Weather information was provided by the Automatic Meteorological Station (AWS) located at the close proximity to the experimental area in GBPUAT, Pantnagar (290N, 79.30E) and includes maximum and minimum temperature, solar radiation and precipitation on daily basis. Observed weather data was incorporated in the DSSAT WeatherMan module in order to generate WTH file. Calibration and validation of model Calibration of the model was accomplished by using measured values from experimental area for Rabi season of 2017-2018, comprising of 27 treatment combinations. In order to calibrate and validate the model, it is indispensable to determine the “genetic coefficients” of the wheat genotype (PBW502) under study. Seven genetic coefficients for wheat was considered, which were obtained in a sequential manner, commencing with the coefficients which mainly deal with phenological development (P1V, P1D, P5, PHINT) followed by the coefficients primarily dealing with growth factors (G1, G2, G3) (Hunt et al., 1993; Hunt and Boot, 1998). Crop characteristics database Managerial information includes specifications of plant spacing, planting depth, method of seed application, variety used, amount, method and time of irrigation, type of fertilizer used and its amount and time of application. Observation of physiological characters under different treatments is also needed which includes planting date, emergence, crown root initiation, tillering, jointing, milking, physiological maturity and harvesting. Taking into consideration the essential input data for proper execution of the model, parameters such as plant height, plants m-2, leaf area index, number of grains per spike, 1000 grain weight (g) was measured via all stages. An iterative approach was applied to derive the genetic coefficients by performing trial and error adjustments until there occur a close match between simulated and observed data for the traits under consideration. Subsequent validation was performed for PBW-502 for the year 2007-2008. Based on the above mentioned dataset, we used some indices to evaluate the fitting of the model such as root mean square error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R2), index of agreement (d-index). Implementation, calibration and validation of model DSSAT model v.4.7 was used for analysis. AT Create module based on crop information was used to create three files for PBW-502, i.e., WHX, WHT, and WHA. The first is experimental file (.WHX) containing information on all above specified experimental conditions. Secondly, the WHA file includes average performance data and information on phenological observations All the indices measures degree of fitting between simulated and measured data (Geng et al., 2017). R2 and RMSE are used to address the degree of dispersion (RMSE) and degree of association (R2) between observed and simulated data. Value of d-index as 1 represents good fitting of model while the value of d-index close to 0 indicates bad 319 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 model fitting between simulated and observed data. (PBW-502) obtained after accomplishment of calibration process tabulated in Table 2. The calibration result of CSM-CROPSIMCERES-wheat model was assessed under different treatment combinations in the present study using the days from planting to emergence, planting to anthesis, planting to physiological maturity, maximum leaf area and yield. Results revealed that the days taken from planting to emergence ranged between 7 to 12d and 4 to 7d for observed and simulated values, respectively. Model underestimated the emergence period under every treatment combination. where, Si refers to simulated value under every treatment combination, Oi is the observed value, denotes average of observed values. Yield gap analysis Yield was simulated by using crop simulation model and yield loss (yield gap) was calculated as: For planting to anthesis period, simulated period ranges from 96 to 80d while observed anthesis period was from 93 to 81d. The estimated days to attain physiological maturity were 113 to 127d which was higher than the observed data for physiological maturity (108 to 127 d). Leaf area index (maximum) ranged between 1.4 to 5.1 and 1.5 to 5.1 for simulated and observed data, respectively. Yield gap = where, Ysim is the simulated yield through model under optimal condition (I1N1D1), Yobs is the observed yield under different treatment combination. Results and Discussion Model calibration and validation The genetic coefficients of the wheat cultivar Table.1 Irrigation and nitrogen treatments used for calibration of the CSM-CROPSIM-CERESWheat model. Details include amount of water and nitrogen applied (mm) Irrigation Levels (Fixed irrigation amount at each stage = 60 mm) Four irrigations at CRI, late jointing, flowering and I1 milking Three irrigations at CRI, late jointing and milking I2 Two irrigations at CRI and late jointing I3 Nitrogen levels (Recommended dose = 150:60:40) 150 kg N/ha N1 112.5 kg N/ha N2 75 kg N/ha N3 CERES-Wheat model. Details include amount of water and nitrogen applied (mm) 320 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 Table.2 Genetic coefficients of wheat cultivar (PBW-502) obtained through calibration of CSMCROPSIM –CERES-Wheat model Code Parameters Days at optimum vernalization temperature required to compete vernalization Percentage reduction in development rate in a photoperiod 10 PID hr shorter than the threshold relative to that at the threshold Grain filling (excluding lag) phase duration P5 Kernel number per unit canopy weight at anthesis G1 Standard kernel size under optimum conditions G2 Standard, non-stressed dry weight (total, including grain) of a G3 single tiller at maturity PHINT Phyllochron interval (GDD) P1V Genetic coefficient 0.5 Unit 88 % d 620 40 45 4.0 0 95 0 Cd nr/g mg g Cd Table.3 RMSE, coefficient of determination and d-index (Wilmott’s index of agreement) obtained for phenological stages, maximum LAI and yield Variable Days from planting to emergence Days from planting to anthesis Days from planting to physiological maturity Maximum leaf area index Grain yield (t ha-1) RMSE 3.97 2.31 3.82 0.55 3.19 RMSE (%) 44.87 2.64 3.25 20.58 11.61 R2 0.62 0.84 0.94 0.72 0.90 d-index 0.33 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.97 Fig.1 Yield gap analysis (t ha-1) depicted in the form of bars. Different patterned bars represent crop sown under different dates. 1-9 treatment combinations represent treatments I1N1, I1N2, I1N3, I2N1, I2N2, I2N3, I3N1, I3N2 and I3N3 in the same sequence under first date of sowing (12th December, 2017). Similarly, treatment combinations 10-18 and 19-27 represents same sequenced irrigation and nitrogen levels under different dates of sowing 321 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 Finally, the model predicted the final yield (product weight) which ranged between 1.42 to 4.73 t ha-1and 1.5 to 4.95 t ha-1 for observed and simulated data, respectively. We can govern that model adjustments considered satisfactory based on the RMSE values (Table 3). For the days from planting to anthesis, calculated RMSE value was 2.31. Scientists dealing with wheat simulations determined RMSE to be 3.0 (Bannayan et al., 2003) and 6.6 (Rezzoug et al., 2008) for anthesis. Values for maturity in the present study calculated as 3.82; ranges of 10.0 (Bannayan et al., 2003), 7.1 (Rezzoug et al., 2008) and 1.4-12.2 (Maldonado-Ibarra, 2015) were reported. In the same way, RMSE values for maximum LAI and grain yield were calculated as 0.55 (20.58%) and 3.19 (11.61%), respectively. Pal et al., (2015) estimated RMSE (%) values upto 5.8 and 11.0 for PBW-343 and WH-542, respectively. Nain et al., (2002) also stated that model could simulate the crop yields even when RMSE vary upto 20%. different treatment combinations. Model underestimated the yield under optimal condition (1=I1N1D1) by 4.65%. Further increase in yield gap was observed as a consequence of significantly higher limitations induced in the field in the form of receding water and nitrogen levels. Maximum yield gap (3.23 t ha-1) was observed under lowest level of irrigation (2 irrigations) and lowest level of nitrogen (75 kg ha-1), in which yield is reduced by 68.28%. In conclusion the results of model calibration and validation showed that the simulated growth and development parameters of wheat were in good agreement with the observed data which was recognized with the aid of statistical analysis (RMSE, r2 and d-index). Usefulness of DSSAT model for assessing yield gap of wheat in Pantnagar region representing foothills of Himalayas, found quite satisfactory. The yield gap calculated as a difference between simulated yield under optimal conditions and observed yields under different stress conditions increases with increase in the stress level. Consequently, maximum yield gap was observed for plots sown very lately (2 Jan 2018) under lowest level of irrigation (2 irrigations) and lowest level of fertilizer (75 kg ha-1). Improving water and nutrient efficiency can act as an effective solution for improving yield over Pantnagar region. When evaluating R2 (degree of association) between observed and simulated values for selected variables (Table 3), phenological characters has a very strong adjustment and exhibits high R2 and low RMSE (%). Fair adjustment was seen for grain yield (t ha-1) having R2 value as 0.90. Measured R2 values for maximum leaf area index well corroborates with the result reported by Pal et al (2015). Validation results were found satisfactory with RMSE value of 8.86%, 8.07%, 18.30% and 5.35% for anthesis, physiologoical maturity, maximum leaf area index and grain yield, respectively. References Anderson, W. K. (2010). Closing the gap between actual and potential yield of rainfed wheat. The impacts of environment, management and cultivar. Field Crops Research, 116(12), 14-22. Bannayan, M., N.M.J. Crout, and G. Hoogenboom. (2003). Application of the CERES-Wheat model for withinseason prediction of winter wheat yield Yield gap analysis Degree of stress was assessed in terms of yield losses (Fig. 1) which were computed by taking difference between simulated yield under non-limiting conditions (taken as reference level) and observed yield under 322 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 in the United Kingdom. Agronomy Journal 95:114-125. Boote, K. J., Kropff, M. J., and Bindraban, P. S. (2001). Physiology and modelling of traits in crop plants: implications for genetic improvement. Agricultural Systems, 70(2-3), 395-420. Cui, Z., Shi, L., Xu, J., Li, J., Zhang, F., and Chen, X. (2005). Effects of N fertilization on winter wheat grain yield and its crude protein content and apparent N losses. Chinese journal of applied ecology, 16(11), 2071-2075. FAO, 2017. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org. Accessed on 12 July, 2018. FAOSTAT, 2016. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. Accessed on 12 July, 2018. Geng, S. M., Yan, D. H., Zhang, Z. B., Wang, Z. L., and Girmad, A. (2017). Performance assessment and application of the DSSAT-CERESMaize model for simulating maize yield under water stress conditions. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 82, No. 1, p. 012030). IOP Publishing. Hoogenboom, G., J.W. Jones, C.H. Porter, K.J. Boote, W.D. Batchelor, and L.A. Hunt (eds.) (2003). DSSAT v4 Cropping system simulation model. In Decision support system for agrotechnology transfer version 4.0. Vol. 1. Overview. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Hunt, L. A., and Boote, K. J. (1998). Data for model operation, calibration, and evaluation. In Understanding options for agricultural production (pp. 9-39). Springer, Dordrecht. Hunt, L. A., Pararajasingham, S., Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Imamura, D. T., and Ogoshi, R. M. (1993). GENCALC: Software to facilitate the use of crop models for analyzing field experiments. Agronomy Journal, 85(5), 1090-1094. Lobell, D. B., and Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I. (2007). Impacts of day versus night temperatures on spring wheat yields. Agronomy journal, 99(2), 469477. Maldonado-Ibarra, I., Rodriguez, G. R., and Castillo-Rosales, D. (2015). Determination of genetic coefficients of three spring wheat varieties under a Mediterranean environment applying the DSSAT model. Chilean journal of agricultural research, 75(4), 418-424. Nain, A. S., Dadhwal, V. K., and Singh, T. P. (2002). Real time wheat yield assessment using technology trend and crop simulation model with minimal data set. Current Science, 1255-1258. Pal, R. K., Rawat, K. S., Singh, J., and Murty, N. S. (2015). Evaluation of CSMCERES-wheat in simulating wheat yield and its attributes with different sowing environments in Tarai region of Uttarakhand. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 7(1), 404-409. Rezzoug, W., B. Gabrielle, A. Suleiman, and K. Benabdeli. (2008). Application and evaluation of the DSSAT-wheat in the Tiaret region of Algeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3(4):284-296. Rinaldi, M. (2004). Water availability at sowing and nitrogen management of durum wheat: a seasonal analysis with the CERES-Wheat model. Field Crops Research, 89(1), 27-37. Thorp, K. R., Hunsaker, D. J., and French, A. N. (2010). Assimilating leaf area index estimates from remote sensing into the simulations of a cropping systems model. Transactions of the ASABE, 53(1), 251-262. 323 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(11): 317-324 Torabi, B., Soltani, A., Galeshi, S., and Zeinali, E. (2011). Assessment of yield gap due to nitrogen management in wheat. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5(7), 879. Yang, Y., Yang, Y., Moiwo, J. P., and Hu, Y. (2010). Estimation of irrigation requirement for sustainable water resources reallocation in North China. Agricultural water management, 97(11), 1711-1721. Zhang, F., Chen, X., and Vitousek, P. (2013). Chinese agriculture: An experiment for the world. Nature, 497(7447), 33. How to cite this article: Shweta Pokhariyal, Ravi Kiran, A.S. Nain and Amit Bijlwan. 2020. Yield Gap Analysis under Different Water and Nitrogen Management Practices in Wheat Crop using CSM-CROPSIMCERES –Wheat Model in Tarai Region of Uttarakhand. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 9(11): 317-324. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.911.038 324