شبیه‌سازی عملکرد، تبخیرتعرق، نیاز آبی و کارآیی مصرف آب گندم با استفاده از مدل CERES-WHEAT-DSSAT در دشت شهرکرد

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

هدف از این مطالعه ارزیابی مدل CERES-WHEAT برای برآورد تبخیرتعرق، نیازآبی، عملکرد و کارایی مصرف آب محصول گندم در دشت شهرکرد است. تحقیقات مزرعه­ای برای انتخاب مناسب‌ترین روش‌های کاشت یا برآورد محصول معمولا هزینه بر بوده و نیاز به زمان طولانی دارد. مدل‌های شبیه‌سازی رشد محصول مناسب‌ترین روش برای کم کردن این هزینه و زمان می‌باشند. مدل CERES-WHEAT یکی از کارآمدترین مدل­ها برای شبیه­سازی رشد گیاه گندم است. برای تعیین کارایی و انتخاب مدل بهینه برآورد تبخیرتعرق و عملکرد محصول گندم از داده­های لایسیمتر ثبت شده ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی استفاده شد. آنالیز حساسیت روش­های برآورد تبخیرتعرق فائو پنمن مونتیث و پرستلی تیلور مدل CERES-WHEAT، مشخص کرد که روش فائو-پنمن-مانتیث با مقادیر  MADبرابر 95/0 ، MSEبرابر 95/0 ، RMSE برابر 57/1 و ضریب همبستگی 0/97 روش بهینه­ای برای برآورد تبخیر تعرق محصول گندم در دشت شهرکرد است. نتایج آزمون آماری نشان داد که عملکرد محصول با این روش دارای حداقل خطا با داده­های مشاهداتی بود. خروجی­های مدل نشان داد روش فائو-پنمن-مونتیث مدل CERES-WHEAT کارایی بالایی برای شبیه‌سازی رشد و برآورد تبخیر تعرق گندم در شرایط آب­و­هوایی شهرکرد دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Simulation of Yield, Evapotranspiration, Water Requirement and Water Use Efficiency of Wheat Using CERES-WHEAT-DSSAT Model in Shahrekord Plain

نویسندگان [English]

  • S. Tofigh
  • D. Rahimi
  • H. Yazadnpanah
Isfahan University
چکیده [English]

 
Introduction Statistical models and numerical simulations have been widely used to detect relationships between the climate and crops. However, the influence of non-climatic factors (such as cultivar and fertilizer changes on yield crop needs to be eliminated. For this reason, dynamic crop models include the SUCROS, Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator(EPIC), WOrld FOod STudies (WOFOST), Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator (APSIM), and Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) have been used in water, nitrogen and weather responses. Among these models DSSAT contains separate models for different crops and can quantitatively predict the growth and production of the annual field crops.
Materials and Methods: In this study, the data of Shahrekord Agricultural Meteorological Station and the data of Lysimeter Station were used to evaluate the correlation between the research results and Lysimeter data from Pearson correlation coefficient, and the RMSE, MAD and MSE are applied in order to calculate the error.
Results and Discussion: Lysimeter: The wheat evapotranspiration amount from the planting (20 of Octobers) to the harvest time (14 of July) is recorded as 611.24 mm. Precipitation during the winter is low but continuous and it is 127 mm that equivalent to the evapotranspiration at this time of growth. In the warm season, a quarter of the evapotranspiration is provided by rainfall. The average of winter evapotranspiration is 0.87 mm per day and in the growth season is 4 mm per day. Also from planting to harvest is 2.42 mm per day that is recorded its maximum 7.8 mm and its minimum 2.32 mm per day. The total amount of drained water during the growth is 76.04 mm that 8.8% of the total rainfall. It indicates that drainage water from the soil is low and irrigation has a high efficiency.
CERES-WHEAT: Wheat evapotranspiration amount during the growth period is 413.51 mm by FAO Penman-Monteith and 489.53 mm by Priestley-Taylor. Precipitation during the winter is low but continuous and it is 127 mm that equivalent to the evapotranspiration at this time of growth. In the warm season, a quarter of the evapotranspiration volume is provided through rainfall. The average of winter evapotranspiration based on the F.P.M and P.T methods are 0.86 and 1.23 mm/day and in the growing season 2.98 and 3.11 mm/day, respectively. During the experiment, the evapotranspiration average is 1.59 mm/day for the FPM method that the maximum is 6.61, and the minimum is 0.379 mm/day. This amount is 1.88 mm/day for P.T method which the maximum is 5.64 and the minimum is 0.45 mm per day. The total amount of drained water during the growing period is 106.3 mm, based on the F.P.M method and 90.2 mm based on the P.T method.
The correlation between farm data and the data obtained through the F.P.M method of CERES-Wheat model is 0.97, which for the P.T method is 0.92. The MAD, MSE and RMSE values obtained between the F.P.M method and farm data are 0.95, 0.95 and 1.57, respectively, and for the P.T method, 0.97, 1.47 and 1.21, respectively. With respect to correlation and MAD, MSE and RMSE value, it is found that the model is highly capable in simulating evapotranspiration and crop performance. Among the methods applied in determining evapotranspiration, the F.P.M method with high correlation and lower error value is more accurate than the P.T method.
Water Factor: From the day 177 to 216 is considered the most sensitive stage of plant growth. Based on DSSAT output over a 25-day period (196 to 216 days) the water available is severely depleted and the plant may experience drought stress. At this stage of the growth, water deficiency should be offset by increasing the time and the amount of irrigation.
Day 210 is the beginning time of the increase in evapotranspiration of the plant. During this period, the amount of water which is uptake from the soil was less than 1 time the plant demand. This period of stress was based on the FAO Penman- Monteith method between the 203rd and 210th days. During this period, the plant goes through its clustering and flowering stages, and water stress at this stage causes the growth of wrinkled and lean grain, resulting in reduced grain weight and reduced crop yield. Water scarcity must be compensate by increased irrigation.
Conclusion: Comparison of model calibration results and farm data indicates that there is a high correlation between farm data and model output. The error between the model results and the Lysimeter station data is low. Among the methods used to calculate the evapotranspiration in the model, FAO Penman- Monteith method is the highest correlation and the lowest error value with the farm experiments and results. In general, the results indicated that the CERES-Wheat model has a high ability to simulate evapotranspiration and wheat yield. Regarding observed data for crop irrigation program indicates that farmers' performance in managing the amount of water needed for the crop at various stages of the growth was not optimal. Consequently, drought stress was observed for developmental and mid-growth stages. The DSSAT simulation indicated that the optimal irrigation management adjusts the time and value of irrigation water according the actual evapotranspiration and water requirement would significantly improve irrigation water use.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • DSSAT-CERES-WHEAT
  • Evapotranspiration
  • FAO Pennman Monteith
  • Lysimeter
  • Priestley- Taylor
1. Abbasi S., Mohammadi H., and Dini A. 2009. Predict of Iranian oilseeds of price (Case Study: Maize and Soybeans), Quarterly Journal of Economic Research and Policies, 17(49):53-41. (In Iranian)
2. Anar M.J, Lin Zh, Hoogenboom G,Shelia V, Batchelor W.D, Teboh J.M, Ostlie M, Schatz B.G, Khan M .2019.Modeling growth, development and yield of Sugarbeet using DSSAT, Agricultural Systems, 169:58-70
3. Andarzian B, Bakhshande A., Banayan M., and Imam Y. 2008. Evaluation of CERES-Wheat Simulation Model under Climatic Conditions of Ahwaz, Iranian Journal of Field Crops Researches, 6(1):11-22. (In Iranian)
4. Anothai, J., Soler C.M.T., Greenb A., Trout T.J., and Hoogenboom G. 2013. Evaluation of two evapotranspiration approaches simulated with the CSM–CERES–Maize model under different irrigation strategies and the impact on maize growth, development and soil moisture content for semi-arid conditions, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 176: 64–76.
5. Attia, A., Rajan N., Xue Q., Nair Sh., Ibrahim A., and Hays D. 2016. Application of DSSAT-CERES-Wheat model to simulate winter wheat response to irrigation management in the Texas High Plains, Agricultural Water Management, 165: 50–60.
6. Azizi G., Safarrad T., Mohammadi H., Faraji Sabokbar H.A. 2016. Evaluation and comparison of re-analysis rainfall data for use in Iran. Physical Geography Research, 48(1): 49 – 33. (In Iranian)
7. Chun-hong QU, Xiang-xiang LI, Hui JU, Qin LIU .2019. The impacts of climate change on wheat yield in the Huang-HuaiHai Plain of China using DSSAT-CERES-Wheat model under different climate scenarios, Agricultural Water Management, 97: 1195-1209.
8. Corbeels M, Chirat G, Messad S, Thierfelder Ch .2016. Performance and sensitivity of the DSSAT crop growth model in simulating maize yield under conservation agriculture, European Journal of Agronomy, 76: 41-53.
9. Dallacort, R., De Freitas P.S.L., Faria R.T., Goncalves A.C.A., Rezende R., and Guimarães R. M.L. 2011. Simulation of bean crop growth, evapotranspiration and yield in Parana State by the CROPGRO-Drybean model, Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 33:4299-436.
10. DeJongea, K.C., Ascough J.C., Andales A.A., Hansenc N.C., Garcia L.A., and Arabi M. 2012. Improving evapotranspiration simulations in the CERES-Maize model under limited irrigation, Agricultural Water Management, 115: 92–103.
11. DeJonge K.C, Thorp K.R .2017. Implementing standardized reference evapotranspiration and dual crop coefficient approach in the DSSAT cropping system model, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 60(6):1965-1981.
12. Delghandi, M., Andarzian B., Boroumand Nasab S., Massah Bavani A., and Javaheri E. 1393. Evaluation of CERES-Wheat model DSSAT 4.5 in simulating growth, yield and phonological stages of wheat under different management conditions of water allocation in the field (Case study: Ahvaz city), Journal of Water and Soil (Agriculture Sciences and Technology), 28 (1):82-91. (In Iranian)
13. Dias M.P.N.M, Navaratne C.M, Weerasinghe K.D.N, Hettiarachchi R.H.A.N .2016. Application of DSSAT Crop Simulation Model to Identify the Changes of Rice Growth and Yield in Nilwala River Basin for Mid-centuries under Changing Climatic Conditions, Procedia Food Science, 6:159-163.
14. Doukoohi H., Ghaysari M., Mousavi S.F., and Mirlatifi S.M. 2012. Simulation of Soil Moisture in Low Irrigation Conditions Using DSSAT Model, Journal of Water and Irrigation Management (Journal of Agriculture), 2(1): 1-14. (In Iranian)
15. Ebrahimi Pak N.A., and Sohrab S .1999. Determination of actual evapotranspiration of wheat using Lysimeter in Shahrekord, Shahrekord Agricultural Meteorological Research Center. (In Iranian)
16. Feizbakhsh M.T., Kamkar B., Mokhtarpour H., and Asadi M.E. 2015. Calibration and evaluation of CERES-Maize model in Gorgan weather conditions; Journal of Crop Production, 8(4): 49-25. (In Iranian)
17. Garibay V.M, Kothari K , Ale S, Gitz III D.C, Morgan G.D, Clyde L.Munster C.L. 2019. Determining water-use-efficient irrigation strategies for cotton using the DSSAT CSM CROPGRO-cotton model evaluated with in-season data, Agricultural Water Management, 223, 105695PP.
18. Jiang Y, Zhang L, Zhang B, He Ch, Jin X , Bai X. 2016. Modeling irrigation management for water conservation by DSSAT-maize model in arid northwestern China, Agricultural Water Management, 177: 37-45.
19. Kassie B.T, Asseng S, Porter Ch.H, Royce F.S (2016)Performance of DSSAT-Nwheat across a wide range of current and future growing conditions, European Journal of Agronomy, Vol 81, PP 27-36.
20. Kimball B.A, Boote K.J, Hatfield J.L, Ahuja L.R, Stockle C, Archontoulis S, Baron Ch, Basso B, Bertuzzi P ,Constantin J, Deryng D, Dumont B, Durand J.L, Ewert F, Gaiser T, Gayler S, .Hoffmann M.P, Jian Q, Kim S.H , Lizaso J, Moulin S, Nendel C , Parker P, Palosuo T , Priesack E , Qi Zh , Srivastava A, Stella T , Tao F, Thorp K.R , Timlin D , Twine T.E , Webber H , Willaume M, Williams K. 2019. Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 271: 264-284.
21. Li Sh, Lei Y, Zhang Y, Liu J, Shi X, Jia H, Wang Ch, Chen Fu, Chu Q. 2019. Rational trade-offs between yield increase and fertilizes inputs are essential for sustainable intensification: A case study in wheat–maize cropping systems in China, Science of The Total Environment, 679: 328-336.
22. Malik W, Isla R, Dechmi F.2019. DSSAT-CERES-maize modelling to improve irrigation and nitrogen management practices under Mediterranean conditions, Agricultural Water Management, 213: 298-308.
23. Malik W, Dechmi F. 2019. DSSAT modelling for best irrigation management practices assessment under Mediterranean conditions, Agricultural Water Management, 216: 27-43.
24. Mu Y., Liu X., and Wang L. 2018. A Pearson’s correlation coefficient based decision tree and its parallel implementation, Information Sciences, 435:40–58.
25. Nabavi Chashmi S.A., and Hasanzadeh A. 2011. Evaluation of the Efficiency of the MA Index in Technical Analysis in Stock Price Forecast, Journal of Financial Knowledge of Securities Analytics, 4,10 (2) : 106-83. (In Iranian)
26. Negm L.M, Youssef M.A, Jaynes D.B. 2017. Evaluation of DRAINMOD- DSSAT simulated effects of controlled drainage on crop yield, water balance, and water quality for a corn-soybean cropping system in central Iowa, Agricultural Water Management, 187: 57-68.
27. Ngwira A.R, Aune J.B, Thierfelder C.2014. DSSAT modelling of conservation agriculture maize response to climate change in Malawi, Soil and Tillage Research, 143: 85-94.
28. Rahmani M., Jami-al-Ahmadi Feli Shahidi M., and Hadizadeh Azghandi M. 2015. Effect of climate change on the length of growth stages and the water requirement of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) (Case study: Birjand Plain), Journal of Agroecology, 2007, 7 (4), pp. 443-460. (In Iranian)
29. Rezaei, M., Shahanazari A., Raeini Sarjaz M., and Vazifeh Doust M. 2015. Evaluation of the Efficiency of the CERES-Rice Model in Estimating the Efficiency and yield of Rice Water Large-scale, Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 9( 2):291-283. (In Iranian)
30. Rezzoug W., Gabrielle B., Suleiman A., and Benabdeli K. 2008. Application and evaluation of the DSSAT-wheat in the Tiaret region of Algeria, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 3:284-296.
31. Shrivastava S., Kar S. C., and Sharma A.R. 2018. The DSSAT model simulations of soil moisture and evapotranspiration over central India and comparison with remotely-sensed data, Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 4:27–37.
32. Thorp, K.R., DeJonge K.C., Kaleita A.L., Batchelor W.D., and Paz J.O. 2008. Methodology for the use of DSSAT models for precision agriculture decision support, computers and electronics in agriculture, 64: 276–285.
33. Yakoub A, Lloveras J, Biau A, Lindquist J.L, Lizaso J.I. 2017. Testing and improving the maize models in DSSAT: Development, growth, yield, and N uptake, Field Crops Research, 212: 95-106.
34. Yashuang Mu, Liu X., Wang L. 2018. A Pearson’s correlation coefficient based decision tree and its parallel implementationʼ, Information Sciences, 435:40–58.
35. Zand-Kermi S., and Darand M. 2016. Evaluation of the accuracy of rainfall data of the Global Climatology Center on Iran, Iranian Journal of Geophysics, 10(5):95-113. (In Iranian).