Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T15:18:08.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A simulation study for assessing yield optimization and potential for water reduction for summer-sown maize under different climate change scenarios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

M. A. IQBAL ,
J. EITZINGER ,
H. FORMAYER ,
A. HASSAN  and
L. K. HENG
M. A. IQBAL*
Affiliation:
Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
J. EITZINGER
Affiliation:
Institute of Meteorology, Department of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
H. FORMAYER
Affiliation:
Institute of Meteorology, Department of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
A. HASSAN
Affiliation:
Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
L. K. HENG
Affiliation:
IAEA-Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition Section, Wagrammer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: anjum_uaf123@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of the present paper was to study the impact of climate change on grain yield, water balance, crop water productivity (CWP) and water requirements for the summer-sown maize in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Climate-change scenarios (Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1B, A2 and B1) were derived from the general circulation model ECHAM 5 and the crop model CERES-Maize was used to simulate impacts of the applied climate scenarios. Calibration and validation of the crop models were carried out for the summer-sown maize in 2007 and for the spring-sown maize in 2008. Three predefined reduced irrigation scenarios were compared to traditional irrigation practices for the summer-sown maize. Under the current conditions, scenario S1 (one irrigation event skipped at the vegetative stage) showed a higher simulated yield than scenario S2 (one irrigation event skipped at the grain-filling stage) due to higher water drainage and nitrogen (N) leaching rates in scenario S2. Scenario S3 (irrigation events skipped at both crop establishment and the grain-filling stage) showed significantly higher grain yield because it had the lowest drainage and N leaching rates. In this irrigation scenario, 60 mm of water were saved compared to the other two scenarios, and much more water was saved compared to the traditional local regime.

In the predicted climatic scenarios and with reduced irrigation, the simulated maize yields and crop water productivities were affected differently. For the period from 2036 to 2065, a more significant yield decrease was shown in all emission and irrigation scenarios. A yield decrease was simulated by both, including and not including the direct effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on photosynthesis. However, the simulated direct effect of elevated CO2 was to produce higher yield and CWP in all scenarios. The highest grain yields and crop water productivities were achieved in the reduced irrigation scenario S3 for all emission scenarios and climatic periods for the same reason as under the current conditions (N leaching). However, the yield differences between the climate scenarios were mainly due to the shortening of the simulated growing period. This was caused by increased temperatures compared to current conditions. A shortened growing cycle reduced the potential time for biomass accumulation and in the present case it was not balanced by the CO2 fertilizing effect (without a potential change in maize cultivars).

By simulating optimum yields (where automatic irrigation is determined by the model to receive optimum yield), under the current conditions it was found that 285 mm of irrigation would ensure the highest grain yield and CWP (30 mm more than under irrigation scenario S3). In this case, actual evapotranspiration reached 373 mm and less deep drainage and N leaching occurred. In the future climate scenarios, optimum yields and irrigation demands diminished depending on the emission scenario, but CWP increased slightly.

The present simulation study shows a clear decreasing yield trend for autumn maize under a warm climate for each type of (unchanged) irrigation management due to the shortening of the growing period. However, in the current climate, as well as in the future climate scenarios, maize yield levels could be improved by optimized (and reduced) irrigation compared to traditional irrigation due to reduced N leaching. Even in the scenario with the highest warming trend (A1B emission scenario for the period 2036–65), the current yield levels could be kept or even improved.

Type
Climate Change and Agriculture
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 149 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 129 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R. M., Rosenzweig, C., Peart, R. M., Ritchie, J. T., Mccarl, B. A., Glyer, J. D., Curry, R. B., Jones, J. W., Boote, K. J. & Allen, L. H. (1990). Global climate change and United States agriculture. Nature 345, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adiku, S. G. K., Jones, J. W., Kumaga, F. K. & Tonyigah, A. (2009). Effects of crop rotation and fallow residue management on maize growth, yield and soil carbon in a savannah-forest transition zone of Ghana. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 147, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. & Smith, M. (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Amthor, J. S. (2001). Effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration on wheat yield: review of results from experiments using various approaches to control CO2 concentration. Field Crop Research 73, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betts, R. A. & Falloon, P. (2007). Biophysical forcing of climate by anthropogenic vegetation change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 142, 216–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkart, S., Manderscheid, R. & Weigel, H. J. (2004). Interactive effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and plant available soil water content on canopy evapotranspiration and conductance of spring wheat. European Journal of Agronomy 21, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassel, D. K. & Nielsen, D. R. (1986). Field capacity and available water capacity. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd edn (Ed. Klute, A.), pp. 901–923. Madison, WI: ASA and SSSA.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, U. N., Kirkham, M. B. & Kanemasu, E. T. (1990). Root growth of winter wheat under elevated carbon dioxide and drought. Crop Science 30, 853–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cure, J. D. & Acock, B. (1986). Crop responses to carbon dioxide doubling: a literature survey. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 38, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Costa, W. A. J. M. & Sangakkara, U. R. (2006). Agronomic regeneration of soil fertility in tropical Asian smallholder uplands for sustainable food production. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 144, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Hösch, J., Žalud, Z. & Dubrovský, M. (2003). Comparison of CERES, WOFOST and SWAP models in simulating soil water content during growing season under different soil conditions. Ecological Modelling 171, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitzinger, J., Formayer, H., Thaler, S., Trnka, M., Zdenek, Z. & Alexandrov, V. (2008). Results and uncertainties of climate change impact research in agricultural crop production in Central Europe. Bodenkultur 59, 131–148.Google Scholar
Ewert, F., Rodriguez, D., Jamieson, P., Semenov, M. A., Mitchell, R. A. C., Goudriaan, J., Porter, J. R., Kimball, B. A., Pinter, P. J. Jr., Manderscheid, R., Weigel, H. J., Fangmeier, A., Fereres, E. & Villalobos, F. (2002). Effects of elevated CO2 and drought on wheat: testing crop simulation models for different experimental and climatic conditions. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 93, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO. (2003). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Gates, W. L., Mitchell, J. F. B., Boer, G. J., Cubasch, U. & Meleshko, V. P. (1992). Climate modelling, climate prediction and model validation. In Climate Change 1992. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment (Eds Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A. & Varney, S. K.), pp. 99–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gifford, R. M. (1979). Growth and yield of CO2 –enriched wheat under water-limited conditions. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 6, 367–378.Google Scholar
Government of Pakistan (2010). Pakistan Economic Survey 2009–10. Islamabad, Pakistan: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Statistics, Agriculture. Available online at http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_0910.html (verified 2 December 2010).Google Scholar
Greenwood, D. J., Zhang, K., Hilton, H. W. & Thompson, A. J. (2010). Opportunities for improving irrigation efficiency with quantitative models, soil water sensors and wireless technology. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 148, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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., Bear, B., Boote, K. J., Ritchie, J. T. & White, J. W. (1994). Crop Models, DSSAT Version 3.0. International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Transfer. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T., Meiro Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A. & Maskell, K. (1996). Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., Van Der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. & Johnson, C. A. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, L. A., Pararajasingham, S., Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Imamura, D. T. & Ogoshi, R. M. (1993). Gencalc-Software to facilitate the use of crop models for analyzing field experiments. Agronomy Journal 85, 1090–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idso, K. E. & Idso, S. B. (1994). Plant responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental constraints–a review of the past 10 years’ research. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 69, 153–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iqbal, M. A., Bodner, G., Heng, L. K., Eitzinger, J. & Hassan, A. (2010). Assessing yield optimization and water reduction potential for summer sown and spring sown maize in Pakistan. Agricultural Water Management 97, 731–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. A. & Kiniry, J. R. (1986). CERES-Maize: A simulation Model of Maize Growth and Development. College Station, TX: A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Jing, Q., Van Keulen, H., Hengsdijk, H., Cao, W., Bindraban, P. S., Dai, T. & Jiang, D. (2009). Quantifying N response and N use efficiency in rice–wheat (RW) cropping systems under different water management. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 147, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, S. Z., Zhang, F. C., Hu, X. T. & Zhang, J. H. (2002). Benefits of CO2 enrichment on crop plants are modified by soil water. Plant and Soil 238, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kätterer, T., Hansson, A-C. & Andrén, O. (1993). Wheat root biomass and nitrogen dynamics – effects of daily irrigation and fertilization. Plant and Soil 151, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, B. A. (1983). Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield: an assemblage and analysis of 430 prior observations. Agronomy Journal 75, 779–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, J. G. (1999). Is potential evapotranspiration and its relationship with actual evapotranspiration sensitive to elevated atmospheric CO2 levels? Climate Change 41, 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorgeou, L. (1990). Evolution du poids d'un grain et de sa teneur en eau. In Physiologie et Production du Maïs (Ed. Picard, D.), pp. 259–274. Paris, France: AGPM, INRA.Google Scholar
Manderscheid, R. & Weigel, H. J. (2007). Drought stress effects on Wheat are mitigated by atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J. & White, K. S. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group 2 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. & Unsworth, M. H. (1990). Principles of Environmental Physics, 2nd edn.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Parry, M. L., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M. & Fischer, G. (2004). Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environment Change 14, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pospisilova, J. & Catsky, J. (1999). Development of water stress under increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. Biologia Plantarum 42, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, J. T., Singh, U., Godwin, D. C. & Hunt, L. A. (1989). A User's Guide to CERES-Maize V2.10. Muscle Shoals, AL: International Fertilizer Development Centre.Google Scholar
Roeckner, E., Brokopf, R., Esch, M., Giorgetta, M., Hagemann, S., Kornblueh, L., Manzini, E., Schlese, U. & Schulzweida, U. (2006). Sensitivity of simulated climate to horizontal and vertical resolution in the ECHAM5 atmosphere model. Journal of Climate 19, 3771–3791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, N. J. (1982). The increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and its implication on agricultural productivity, lI. Effect through CO2-induced climate change. Climate Change 4, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, C. & Hillel, D. (1998). Climate Change and the Global Harvest: Potential Impacts of the Greenhouse Effect on Agriculture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, C. & Parry, M. L. (1994). Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M. L., Fischer, G. & Frohberg, K. (1993). Climate Change and World Food Supply. Research Report No. 3. Oxford: Environmental Change Unit, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Ryan, J., Singh, M., Pala, M., Makhboul, R., Masri, S., Harris, H. C. & Sommer, R. (2010). Crop sequences, nitrogen fertilizer and grazing intensity in relation to wheat yields in rainfed systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 148, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samarakoon, A. B., Muller, W. J. & Gifford, R. M. (1995). Transpiration and leaf area under elevated CO2: effects of soil water status and genotype in wheat. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 22, 33–44.Google Scholar
Semenov, M. & Barrow, E. (1997). Use of a stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 35, 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. & Olesen, J. E. (2010). Synergies between the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in agriculture. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 148, 543–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M. & Miller, H. L. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tubiello, F. N., Donatelli, M., Rosenzweig, C. & Stockle, C. O. (2000). Effects of climate change and elevated CO2 on cropping systems: model predictions at two Italian locations. European Journal of Agronomy 13, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergé, X. P. C., De Kimpe, C. & Desjardins, R. L. (2007). Agricultural production, greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 142, 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsung, F., Garcia, R. L., Wall, G. W., Kartschall, T., Kimball, B. A., Michaelis, P., Pinter, P. J. Jr., Wechsung, G., Grossman-Clarke, S., Lamorte, R. L., Adamsen, F. J., Leavitt, S. W., Thompson, T. L., Matthias, A. D. & Brooks, T. J. (2000). Photosynthesis and conductance of spring wheat ears: field response to free-air CO2 enrichment and limitations in water and nitrogen supply. Plant, Cell and Environment 23, 917–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmott, C. J., Ackleson, S. G., Davis, R. E., Feddema, J. J., Klink, K. M., Legates, D. R., O'Connell, J. & Rowe, C. M. (1985). Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models. Journal of Geophysical Research 90, 8995–9005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank. (2006). Better Management of Indus Basin Waters – Strategic Issues and Challenges. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Yan, W. & Hunt, L. A. (1999). An equation for modelling the temperature response of plants using only the cardinal temperatures. Annals of Botany 84, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar