Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:A:Agricultural Water Management:Vol46.Issue2.2000:

Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

Assessment of a crop growth-water balance model
for predicting maize growth and yield in
a subtropical environment
V.K. Arora*, P.R. Gajri
Department of Soils, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, India
Accepted 10 January 2000

Abstract
A combination of a simple and universal crop growth simulator (SUCROS) of van Keulen et al.
[van Keulen, H., Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Drees, E.M., 1982. A summary model for crop growth.
In: Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Laar van, H.H. (Eds.), Simulation of Plant Growth and Crop
Production. Simulation Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen] with a water balance model (WBM) of
Arora et al. [Arora, V.K., Prihar, S.S., Gajri, P.R., 1987. Synthesis of a simpli®ed water use
simulation model for predicting wheat yields. Water Resources Res. 23, 903±910] along with some
modi®cations was assessed for predicting maize growth and yield in variable climatic and water
supply regimes. Model assessment showed that simulated biomass and grain yield of maize were
close to the measured data in medium water-retentive sandy loam; while in low retentive loamy
sand, biomass was over-predicted for most of water supply regimes. Poor performance of the model
in the loamy sand appears due to the reason that the maize grown on such soils during hot and

monsoonal rainy season generally suffers more from soil-related constraints other than water stress.
The analysis indicates the adequacy of the combination model in medium water-retentive soils.
# 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Model; Simulation; Water loss; Biomass; Maize

1. Introduction
Crop simulation techniques are increasingly used to support field research focussed
toward efficient and sustainable water use in cropping. It involves developing
(or adapting) and assessing crop growth and water balance models for analysing the
*

Corresponding author.

0378-3774/00/$ ± see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 3 7 7 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 9 - 2

158

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

effects of variation in climatic and water supply regimes on crop yields. Process-based
crop growth models may use the concept of radiation use efficiency (RUE) and
intercepted solar radiation for computing biomass accumulation (Monteith, 1977), and
this approach has been followed in CERES crop models. An alternative approach
considers detailed processes of gross photosynthesis and respiration (maintenance and
growth) to estimate biomass accumulation. These physiologically-based comprehensive
models have been simplified to summary models (e.g. van Keulen et al., 1982) for
predicting crop growth in climate-limited environments. Such models can be interfaced
with a soil water balance model to account for the effects of variation in water supply on
crop growth and development (Dierckx et al., 1988; Xevi et al., 1996).
Soil water dynamics at the field scale have been described through simple empirical
and complex process-based models. As empirical models cannot be extrapolated beyond
experimental data sets, and input data for complex process-based models are not readily
available, attempts have been made to develop and use simplified process-based models
(Hanks, 1974; Arora et al., 1987; Saxton, 1989). This paper is an assessment of the
performance of a combination of a summary crop growth model (Simple and Universal
CROp growth Simulator Ð SUCROS, van Keulen et al., 1982) with a water balance
model (WBM of Arora et al., 1987) along with some modifications for predicting maize
growth and yield in variable climatic and water supply regimes in a subtropical
environment of north-west India.

2. Model details
The SUCROS±WBM combination simulates dry mass accumulation (from emergence)
as a function of maximum and minimum air temperature, solar radiation, and soil water
status. Crop aspects of the model include gross CO2 assimilation, maintenance
respiration, assimilate partitioning, dry matter production, green area growth and
senescence. Water balance aspects considered are soil evaporation (E), canopy
evaporation (I), crop transpiration (T), and drainage (D) at a field scale.
2.1. Crop growth submodel
2.1.1. Canopy gross CO2 assimilation
In the SUCROS, the rate of CO2 assimilation of the canopy is obtained from the CO2
assimilation±light response curve of individual leaves, total green area of the canopy,
spatial arrangement of leaves, and incident irradiation. Daily values are obtained by using
process-based descriptive equations given by Goudriaan and van Laar (1978). Am is
influenced by day-time air temperature, decreasing on either side of the optimal
temperature range (Penning de Vries et al., 1989).
2.1.2. Respiration and growth
Maintenance requirements for leaf, stem, root, and storage organs are set to 0.03,
0.015, 0.01, and 0.01 kg CH2O kgÿ1 dry mass per day at 258C; the effect of other
temperatures is taken into account with a Q10 value of 2. In addition, 10% of gross

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

159

assimilates is assumed to be consumed in metabolic activity (Penning de Vries et al.,
1989), and the remainder is transformed into structural dry mass. The average conversion factors (CF) of 0.72, 0.69, 0.72 and 0.73 kg dry mass kgÿ1 CH2O for leaf, stem, root,
and storage organs, respectively are weighted with the fractional increment of each
organ.
2.1.3. Phenological development
Phenological development is characterized by development stage (DS), a variable with
a value of 0 at emergence, 1 at flowering, and 2 at physiological maturity. Intermediate
values follow from integrating development rate (DR), which depends on average air
temperature (Ta) and photo-periodic day length (DLP) during the vegetative, and on Ta
alone during the reproductive phase. The development rate constants in vegetative
(DRVC) and reproductive (DRRC) phase were estimated using field data. The
coefficients for the effect of Ta and DLP on these constants as given by Warrington
and Kanamasu (1983) were employed.
2.1.4. Partitioning of dry matter
Total dry mass increase is partitioned between root and shoot, and subsequently,

aboveground is divided among leaves, stem, and storage organs. Moreover, substantial
reserves from vegetative components (15% of stem mass at silking) are also available for
cob growth in maize (Simmons and Jones, 1985).
2.1.5. Green area growth
In the SUCROS, the increase in green area of the canopy follows from the growth rate
of leaves and stems by considering a constant value of specific leaf (SLA) and stem area
(SSA) during the growing season. Leaf senescence is included as linearly increasing DSdependent relative senescence rate (RSR). In very dense canopies, senescence accelerates
due to shading effects. Threshold LAI values and senescence rates due to shading for
spring wheat (van Keulen and Seligman, 1987) were assumed to hold good for maize.
High air temperatures and water stress increase RSR. The green area of maize stems starts
senescing at physiological maturity.
2.2. Water balance submodel
WBM (Arora et al., 1987) is an integration of the model of Hanks (1974) with
functional relations to account for effects of rooting depth and distribution on T, and soil
water redistribution below field capacity. This submodel was expanded to consider
canopy evaporation (I) and transfer of unused soil evaporation energy to the plant canopy
using the algorithm of Saxton (1989).
2.2.1. Canopy interception evaporation
Crop canopies intercept water from rain or sprinkler irrigation, which is preferentially
lost as interception evaporation (I) making first use of radiant energy (ETp). A maximum

value of interception storage of 0.25 cm for a full canopy (LAI exceeding 4) is assumed.

160

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

2.2.2. Soil evaporation
After accounting for I, the remainder of ETp is partitioned between soil (Em) and plant
(Tm) surfaces depending on the radiation interception factor (FI) based on green area of
leaves and stems. Actual E is limited by Em and decreases as surface soil dries:
Eˆ

Em
t0:3

The time exponent depends on soil water retentivity and evaporative demand (Jalota and
Prihar, 1990). This water is extracted from various soil layers and remaining Em is
transferred to potential canopy transpiration.
2.2.3. Plant transpiration
Potential T (Tm) is withdrawn from the top soil layer only, regardless of depth and

density of rooting under conditions of abundant water supply (fractional available water,
FAW, exceeding 0.80). Below this threshold, Tm is partitioned in proportion to the
fraction of the root system in each layer using empirical functions fitted to depth and
density of rooting (Arora and Gajri, 1996). Extraction of water occurs at the potential rate
until FAW reaches 0.25 (Muchow and Sinclair, 1991), below which a linear reduction in
extraction is assumed.
2.2.4. Water stress effects on crop growth
Water stress influences crop growth and development through (i) reduction in gross
assimilation in direct proportion to the degree of water stress; (ii) assimilate partitioning,
i.e. a reduction in shoot fraction (due to reduced expansion growth) causing increased
allocation to roots when transpiration deficit exceeds 50% (Penning de Vries et al., 1989);
(iii) slowing down of DR in the vegetative phase leading to delayed tasseling and silking
(Muchow and Sinclair, 1991); and (iv) acceleration of leaf senescence (Saxton, 1989).
2.3. Data requirements
Weather and location data needed for the model comprises latitude, day number, solar
radiation, maximum and minimum air temperature, and Class A pan evaporation (Ep).
Crop-specific physiological information includes Am and its dependence on day-time air
temperature, and EFFE (efficiency of incoming PAR). Cultivar-specific information
comprise development rate constants in vegetative (DRVC) and reproductive (DRRC)
phases, factors for the effect of Ta and DLP on DRVC and DRRC, coefficients of

empirical functions fitted to depth to rooting front and density distribution of roots, leaf
and root mass at emergence, specific leaf and stem area, partitioning coefficients and
relative senescence rate (RSR) of leaves and stems in relation to DS. Soil information
defining extractable water and drainage coefficients is needed.
3. Testing data
In order to assess the performance of SUCROS±WBM under variable water supply
regimes, data base were obtained from a field study on maize (from 1991 through 1995)

161

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166
Table 1
Extractable water, and drainage coef®cients for various layers of two experimental soils
Soil depth,
(cm)

Upper limit
(%, v/v)

Loamy sand

0±30
30±60
60±90
90±120
120±150
150±180

20.0
20.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.5

Sandy loam
0±30
30±60
60±90
90±120
120±150

150±180

25.0
27.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0

a

Soil thickness
(cm)

aa

ba

3.0
4.0

4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

0±30
0±60
0±90
0±120
0±150
0±180

5.90
11.92
17.90
23.17
27.92
32.32

ÿ0.0795
ÿ0.0755
ÿ0.0750
ÿ0.0773
ÿ0.0803
ÿ0.0815

5.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.5

0±30
0±60
0±90
0±120
0±150
0±180

7.50
15.60
24.30
33.00
41.70
50.40

ÿ0.0520
ÿ0.0510
ÿ0.0480
ÿ0.0475
ÿ0.0470
ÿ0.0465

Lower
limit

Regression coef®cients of the empirical equation Wˆatb.

at Punjab Agricultural University Research Farm at Ludhiana (308560 N, 758520 E, 247 m
asl). The soils are deep alluvial loamy sand (Typic Ustipsamment) (1991 and 1992 only)
and sandy loam (Typic Ustochrept). Information on soil-water retention at the drained
upper and lower limits and drainage coefficients for various soil depths is given in Table 1.
The field plots were conventionally tilled (one discing, two runs of a cultivator and
levelling) after a pre-seeding irrigation. Maize (cv. Partap) was dibbled (seed placed at a
depth of 5 cm and covered with the soil) in 60 cm22.5 cm spacing after drilling 40 kg
N, 60 kg P2O5, 30 kg K2O, and 25 kg ZnSO4 haÿ1 in the last week of June. Two splits of
40 kg N haÿ1 each were applied at 20 and 40 days after seeding (DAS). Irrigation
amounts were timed in such a way to impose variable regimes of no (I0) or partial (Ip)
irrigation, and full irrigation (If). Other agronomic management followed local
recommendations and the crop was harvested in the last week of September. Potential
ET (ETp) was assumed equal to Ep. Rain was measured at the experimental site, while
data on Ep was obtained from a meteorological station 2 km south-east of the site. Cropand cultivar-specific information is given in Table 2.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Potential production environment
Potential dry mass accumulation (in the assumed absence of water and nutrient stress,
and disease and pest damage) in maize was modelled for 1992 growing season.
Simulation results showed that harvest-time biomass accumulation in roots, leaves, stems,
and storage organs (cobs) was 0.7, 1.7, 3.3 and 6.6 t haÿ1. Using grain/cob ratio of 0.75,
potential grain yield was estimated to be 6.0 t haÿ1 (15% moisture) which is close to best
yields obtained in well managed experiments.

162

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

Table 2
Crop- and cultivar-speci®c information for maize required in the SUCROS±WBM combination model
Maximum CO2 assimilation rate of a single leafˆ90 kg haÿ1 hÿ1
Initial ef®ciency of absorbed PARˆ0.5 kg haÿ1 hÿ1 per J mÿ2 sÿ1 (Penning de Vries et al., 1989)
DRVCˆ0.0225
DRRCˆ0.0250
Depth to rooting front (Dr, cm) in relation to time (t, days)
Drˆ120/(1‡25.73(exp ÿ0.0831 t) loamy sand
Drˆ165/(1‡40.50(exp ÿ0.0957 t) sandy loam
Fraction of roots (Ri) in relation to time (t) and mid-way value of ith depth layer (di)
Riˆexp(5.660ÿ0.0170 tÿ0.0795 di‡0.0007 t di) loamy sand
Riˆexp(4.923ÿ0.0082 tÿ 0.0462 di‡0.0003 t di) sandy loam (Arora and Gajri, 1996)
Leaf and root mass at emergenceˆ6 kg haÿ1
Speci®c leaf areaˆ26.0 m2 kgÿ1
Speci®c stem areaˆ4.0 m2 kgÿ1
Grain/Cob ratioˆ0.75
Partitioning coef®cients
DS
0
1.0
2.5
Shoot (SH) as a whole crop fraction
0.7
1.0
1.0
DS
0
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.1
Leaves as SH fraction
1.0
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
Stem as SH fraction
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.0
DS
0
0.25
0.75
1.6
1.9
RSR (%) (leaves)
0.0
0.0
0.20
1.0
10.0
Air temperature
10.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
RSR multiplier
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Water stress
0
0.2
0.5
1.0
Accelerated senescence (%)
0.0
0.0
2.0
20.0
DS
2.00
RSR (stem)
0.20

2.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
10.0

Table 3
Comparison of simulated and measured seasonal water loss (cm) with the combination model in different
treatments under maize on the two soils in different years
Year

1991

Soil
type

Irrigation
regime

Amounts of
irrigation rain

I

1s

Ip
If
Ip
If
Ip
Ip
Ip
Ip
Io
Ip
Ip

8
38
8
38
4
14
4
20
0
10
5

2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.2
4.7
4.8
4.1

s1
1992

1s

1993
1994

s1
s1
s1

1995

s1

35.5

36.6

63.4
67.7
97.7

E

17.4
16.3
16.1
16.4
13.1
13.1
13.0
11.1
12.5
12.8
10.9

T

20.9
28.2
25.6
28.2
23.8
23.9
24.9
28.5
22.1
22.1
22.5

D

11.7
33.6
1.9
25.2
1.7
10.6
1.3
24.4
24.8
34.4
61.6

Water loss
Simulated

Measured

52.8
81.1
46.6
72.7
42.5
51.5
43.1
66.1
64.1
74.1
99.1

52.9
81.2
49.4
74.9
42.3
51.0
45.6
71.8
68.8
78.8
106.2

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

163

4.2. Variable-water environments
In variable-water environments, simulation results of seasonal water loss, and timetrends of above-ground biomass, and harvest-time biomass and grain yield were
compared to measured values. Simulated water loss (sum of I, E, T, and D) was close to

Fig. 1. Time trends of measured (points) and simulated (lines) above ground biomass in (a) Ip regime on loamy
sand in 1991, and (b) Ip regime on sandy loam in 1992.

164

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

measured values (sum of profile water depletion from seeding till harvest, rain and
irrigation) (Table 3). Root mean square of deviations (RMSD) between the two was
3.7 cm for measured loss varying between 42.3 to 106.2 cm. It is also shown that drainage
was a substantial component of total water loss.

Fig. 2. Comparison of harvest-time measured and simulated (a) above-ground biomass, and (b) grain yield of
maize with the combination model.

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

165

Time-trends of biomass accumulation in two widely different treatments viz., Ip on
loamy sand in 1991 and Ip on sandy loam in 1992 (Fig. 1) shows that simulated values
were close to measured data throughout the growing season in medium water-retentive
sandy loam; while in low retentive loamy sand biomass was over-predicted. Comparison
of harvest-time measured and simulated biomass and grain yield for all the treatments on
the two soils during different years (Fig. 2) shows that there was a reasonably good
matching in biomass accumulation with a RMSD of 1.6 t haÿ1 for measured values
varying between 5.8 to 13.5 t haÿ1. Simulated grain yield had a greater variance with a
RMSD of 1.2 t haÿ1 for measured yield between 1.6 to 5.5 t haÿ1.
An analysis of model results indicate that simulation of biomass and grain yield of
maize was quite reasonable on medium water-retentive sandy loam; but had a greater
variance on the loamy sand soil. Poor performance of the model in the loamy sand
appears due to the reason that the maize grown on such soils during hot and monsoonal
rainy season generally suffers more from soil-related constraints, other than water stress,
which are not accounted in the model. Owing to the high permeability and rapid
development of soil strength in coarse textured soils, the maize crop is more prone to
stress(es) associated with leaching of nutrients and restricted rooting. This is evidenced
by a number of reports on benefits of deep tillage to maize (Chaudhary et al., 1985; Arora
et al., 1991; Gajri et al., 1994). Thus, the adequacy of the combination model is restricted
to medium water-retentive soils.

5. Conclusions
Extensive assessment of the SUCROS±WBM combination model showed that
simulated biomass and grain yield of maize were close to the measured data in medium
water-retentive sandy loam; while in low retentive loamy sand, biomass was overpredicted for most of water supply regimes. Poor performance of the model in the loamy
sand could be ascribed to the reason that the maize grown on such soils during hot and
monsoonal rainy season generally suffers more from soil-related constraints other than
water stress.

Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) under the Cooperative Agricultural Research Programme, US-India Fund.

References
Arora, V.K., Gajri, P.R., 1996. Performance of simpli®ed water balance models under maize in a semiarid
subtropical environment. Agric. Water Manage. 31, 51±64.
Arora, V.K., Gajri, P.R., Prihar, S.S., 1991. Tillage effects on corn in sandy soils in relation to water retentivity,
nutrient and water management, and seasonal evaporativity. Soil Tillage Res. 21, 1±21.

166

V.K. Arora, P.R. Gajri / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2000) 157±166

Arora, V.K., Prihar, S.S., Gajri, P.R., 1987. Synthesis of a simpli®ed water use simulation model for predicting
wheat yields. Water Resourc. Res. 23, 903±910.
Chaudhary, M.R., Gajri, P.R., Prihar, S.S., Khera, R., 1985. Effect of deep tillage on soil physical properties and
maize yields on coarse textured soils. Soil Tillage Res. 6, 31±44.
Dierckx, J., Gilley, J.R., Feyen, J., Belmans, C., 1988. Simulation of the soil water dynamics and corn yields
under de®cit irrigation. Irrigation Sci. 9, 105±125.
Gajri, P.R., Arora, V.K., Chaudhary, M.R., 1994. Maize growth responses to deep tillage straw mulching and
farmyard manure in coarse textured soils of NW India. Soil Use Manage. 10, 15±20.
Goudriaan, J., van Laar, H.H., 1978. Calculations of daily totals of the gross CO2 assimilation of leaf canopies.
Netherlands J. Agric. Sci. 26, 373±382.
Hanks, R.J., 1974. Model for predicting plant yield as in¯uenced by water use. Agron. J. 66, 660±665.
Jalota, S.K., Prihar, S.S., 1990. Bare soil evaporation in relation to tillage. Adv. Soil Sci. 12, 190±205.
Monteith, J.L., 1977. Climate and the ef®ciency of crop production in Britain. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B
281, 277±294.
Muchow, R.C., Sinclair, T.R., 1991. Water de®cit effects on maize yields modelled under current and green
house climates. Agron. J. 83, 1052±1059.
Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Jansen, D.M., Ten Berge, H.F.M., Bakema, A., 1989. Simulation of ecophysiological
processes of growth in several annual crops. Simulation Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen.
Saxton, K.E., 1989. User manual for SPAW Ð A soil plant atmosphere water model. USDA-SEA-AR, Pullman.
pp. 90.
Simmons, S.R., Jones, R.J., 1985. Contributions of pre-silking assimilates to grain yield in maize. Crop Sci. 25,
1004±1006.
van Keulen, H., Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Drees, E.M., 1982. A summary model for crop growth. In: Penning de
Vries, F.W.T., Laar van, H.H. (Eds.), Simulation of Plant Growth and Crop Production. Simulation
Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen.
van Keulen, H., Seligman, N.G., 1987. Simulation of water use, nitrogen nutrition and growth of a spring wheat
crop. Simulation Monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen.
Warrington, I.J., Kanamasu, E.T., 1983. Corn growth responses to temperature and photoperiod I. Seedling
emergence, tassel initiation and anthesis. Agron. J. 75, 749±754.
Xevi, E., Gilley, J.R., Feyen, J., 1996. Comparative study of two crop yield simulation models. Agric. Water
Manage. 30, 155±173.