Pak. j. life soc. Sci.

(2016), 14(2): 104-114 E-ISSN: 2221-7630;P-ISSN: 1727-4915

Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences

www.pjlss.edu.pk

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Application of DSSAT Model for Sowing Date Management of C4 Summer
Cereals for Fodder and Grain Crops under Irrigated Arid Environment
S ha ke el Ah mad 1 , Saj j ad H us s ai n 1 , Zar ta s h Fa ti ma 1 , G h ul a m Ab b a s 1 , At iq ue - ur - R e h ma n 1 ,
Mu h a m mad Ra f iq ue K h an 1 , Ha se eb Yo u n i s 1 , S ahr i s h Naz 1 , M u ha m ma d So ha il 1 , M u ha m ma d
Aj ma l 1 , N a see m Ab b as 1 , M u h a m mad Ak h tar 1 , Ab d ur R a u f 1 , Me h rab K ha n 1 , Ze s ha n Al i 1 ,
Mu h a m mad Ha s sa n 1 , M u ha m ma d R iz wa n 1 , R uq ia Sa fd ar B aj wa 1 , A mn a Aj mal 1 , Sa fi n a N az 1 ,
Hi na Ali 2 , Az har Al i K ha n 3 , M u ha m ma d Ali 4 , G h ula m S ar wa r 5 , M u ha m ma d Aza m K ha n 6 a nd
Mirz a H as a n uzz a ma n 7
1
B a ha ud d i n Za kar i ya U ni v er si t y, M u lta n - 6 0 8 0 0 , P ak is ta n ; 2 T h e W o me n U n i ver s it y, M ul ta n,
P ak is ta n ; 3 P a ki st a n Ag r ic ul t ur a l Re s earc h Co u nc il, Re se arc h a nd T rai ni n g St at io n, M ul ta n -
6 0 8 0 0 , P ak i st a n ; 4 G ha z i U n i ver si t y, Der a G h a zi K ha n -3 2 2 0 0 , P a k i sta n ; 5 Co tto n R es earc h
Sta tio n , Ve h ar i , P a k i sta n; 6 E x te n sio n W i n g o f Ag ric u lt ur e, D i str ic t C h in io t - 3 5 4 0 0 , P u nj ab ,
P ak is ta n ; 7 S her - e -B a n gl a Agr ic ul t ur a l U n i ver s it y, D ha k a, B a n g lad e s h

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: Feb 20, 2016 Fodder and grain yield of maize, millet and sorghum is constrained by environ-
Accepted: Jul 28, 2016 mental conditions by early or delay sowing dates instead optimum sowing dates. For
Online: Jul 31, 2016 optimization of fodder and grain yield, sowing at the suitable time to fit the cultivar
physiological maturity duration and crop growing season is very important. Crop
Keywords growth models could be used to find out the appropriate sowing time for a region.
Crop modeling The purpose of this study was to evaluation and application of CSM-CERES models
DSSAT model application of maize, millet and sorghum for its capability to simulate growth, development,
Maize fodder and grain yield at various sowing dates. Three sowing dates treatments were
Millet applied for each crop experiment for grain purpose maize (SD 1=10 July, SD2=17
Sorghum July and SD3=2 August) Millet (SD1=20 July, SD2=4 August and SD3=10 August)
and Sorghum (SD1=15 August, SD2=23 August and SD3=27 August) in year 2015.
Same sowing dates were applied as a treatment for fodder purpose for each crop
experiment. Evaluation with the experimental data showed that performance of the
CSM-CERES models of maize, millet and sorghum were well as indicated by good
accurate simulation of crop phenology, total dry matter accumulation and fodder and
grain yield against field trials observed data. For fodder production, d-value for
maize, millet and sorghum was 0.98, 0.99 and 0.90; respectively. While, 0.98, 0.99
and 0.96 was the d-value for maize, millet and sorghum crops, respectively for grain
yield. The RMSE value was 547.92, 272.11 and 299.73 for maize, millet and
sorghum, respectively for fodder yield. 194.17, 122.62 and 143.64 was RMSE value
for maize, millet and sorghum, respectively for grain yield. The simulation scenario
showed that, mean maximum fodder and grain yield (at 50th percentile) were recorded
for maize crop sown on 10 July, millet on 20 July and 4 August, respectively and
sorghum on 23 August. Therefore, DSSAT model could be applied effectively as a
decision making tool for sowing date management of C4 summer cereals to accomplish
*Corresponding Author: local demand of grain and fodder for human beings and animals, keeping in view, the
[email protected] climate change situations under irrigated arid environment.

INTRODUCTION sorghum for grain purpose is 1.130, 0.171 and 0.408 M

hectares, respectively. Total production for grain
Maize, millet and sorghum are important crops, which purpose of maize, millet and sorghum is 4.695, 0.103
are grown for dual purpose as a grain and fodder crops and 0.258 M tones, respectively. Total sowing area of
in Pakistan. Total sowing area of maize, millet and maize, millet and sorghum for fodder purpose is 0.09,

104
Ahmad et al

0.11 and 0.41 M hectares, respectively. Total prevents exact prediction of grain and fodder
production for fodder purpose of maize, millet and production of agricultural crops (Gesch and Archer,
sorghum is 0.96, 0.76 and 6.31 M tones, respectively 2005; Liu et al., 2013; Verma et al., 2013; Waha et al.,
(GOP, 2015). 2013; Gerardeaux et al., 2016).
Several earlier studies have confirmed that the Crop growth models put together by integrating the
assessment of the crop sowing time influence the crop interdisciplinary research based information’s obtained
biological and economic yield (Ahmad et al., 2015; with the help of experimentations and technological
Gueye et al., 2015; Bussmann et al., 2016; Waongo et novelty in various fields of biological, physical, and
al., 2015; Mahmood et al., 2016). Varying the sowing chemical science linking to production systems in
time can be consequence in advantages and Agriculture sector (Boote et al., 2010; Hoogenboom et
disadvantages (Marteau et al., 2011; Wolf et al., 2015; al., 2015; Santos et al., 2016). Agricultural simulation
Xingfen et al., 2015; Tovignan et al., 2016). An models could be helpful tools in support of the
optimum sowing time can expand the growing period, assessment of alternative management choices for
which permit crop plants to take up additional solar particular sites, counting sowing dates, fertilizers
radiation, generate more photosynthates, as well as application levels, planting density and others (Folliard
build up more dry matter accumulation (Lindquist et al., et al., 2004; Ma et al., 2006; Akponikpe et al., 2010;
2005; Rahman et al., 2004; Maton et al., 2007; Sun et Waha et al., 2012). Consequently, these models may be
al., 2007; Chunrong et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013; able to enhance understanding as well as managements
Tsimba et al., 2013; Iizumi et al., 2014; Choi et al., of the farming systems in a holistic approach (Fang et
2016). Consequently, the optimum sowing time enabled al., 2008; Fatondji et al., 2012). Cereal crops simulation
through the growth and development of the cultivars models have been employed to study the performance
with superior tolerance of sub-optimal circumstances of various management practices (Gungula et al., 2003).
normally yields more productivity, predominantly in Crop growth models also provide the means to meet the
regions with higher variations in growing season (Zhou requirements of influence of weather, soil, and crop
et al., 2005; Soler et al., 2007, 2008; Dahmardeh and managements on crop development, productivity as
Dahmardeh 2010; Akponikpe et al., 2011; Teetor et al., well as sustainability of farming systems (Matthews
2011; Azrag and Dagash, 2015; Rezaei et al., 2014; and Pilbeam 2005; Saseendran et al., 2005; Murty et al.,
Ibrahim et al., 2015; Ahmad et al., 2016a, b; Mubeen et 2007; Mubeen et al., 2013). Crop modeling as a tool
al., 2016). Nevertheless, earlier or later sowing dates can decrease the need for costly and time-consuming
than optimal sowing time can increases the risks of field experiments and could be utilized to analyze
reduction in agricultural resources use efficiency in arid biological and economic yield gaps in an assortment of
and semi-arid regions and the risks of weeds, pests and crops counting both cereal grain and fodder crops
diseases damage to crop plants. These harmful impacts (Nouna et al., 2000; Saseendran et al., 2009).
can consequence in crop failure or noteworthy loss of The overall objective of the research was to evaluation
biological and economic yield (Iken and Amusa, 2004; of the performance of the CSM-CERES-Maize, CSM-
Berzsenyi and Lap, 2005; Aziz et al., 2007; Dera et al., CERES-Millet and CSM-CERES-Sorghum models for
2014). Consequently, consideration of optimization in sowing date management for C4 summer cereals for
the sowing time decision is of very important. For the fodder and grain yields for irrigated-arid environment
reason that the shifting of sowing time is the lowest- of Multan.
cost adaptation strategy to weather changes, it has
previously been separately applied by agriculturists in MATERIALS AND METHODS
numerous parts of the globe and it can be useful in the
rest of the agricultural community with comparatively Experimental location description
little attempt (Kucharik, 2008; El-Lattief, 2011; Field studies were carried out in 2015 at the research
Erickson et al., 2011; Han et al., 2012a, b; Li et al., area of Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and
2013; Tao et al., 2014). Changes in favorable situation Technology (FAST), Bahauddin Zakariya University
such as the commencement of rainy or the wet period (BZU) Multan (Latitude = 30.21º N Longitude = 71.46º
and harsh seasonal weather circumstances such as cold E Elevation = 122 m). The study location is situated in
and dry spell can alter the optimal sowing times. These cotton-based cropping region in arid region of Punjab.
variations can higher crop production (Wajid et al., Soil texture class is silty-loam belonging to miani soil
2004; Laux et al., 2010; Tariq et al., 2011; Grassini et series. Soil sections which obtained at sowing time
al., 2011; Han et al., 2012; Opsi et al., 2013; Florio et during 2015 having pH of 8.1, organic matter
al., 2014). The remaining very important problem is percentage 0.45%, whole nitrogen 0.032%, and
that the climatic impact on the sowing time is extremely obtainable phosphorus of 8.52 ppm as well as
reliant on the regional geographical conditions, which obtainable K of 164 ppm. The climatic condition of the

105
Application of DSSAT model for sowing date management of C4 summer cereals

area is arid with mean yearly highest and lowest

temperatures of 46.5 and 19.4 ºC, respectively yearly
precipitation ranged from 50 to 150 mm. Monthly mean
solar radiations throughout ranged from 16.2 to 32.5 MJ
m-2 d-1. The complete weather record is given in Fig. 1.
Experimental procedures
Maize, millet and sorghum crops were grown at various
sowing dates for both fodder and grain purpose during
2015. Six field experiments were carried out in which
three experiments were for grain purpose and three
were for fodder purpose. Three sowing dates treatments
were applied for each crop experiment for grain
purpose maize (SD1 = 10 July, SD2 = 17 July and SD3 =
2 August) Millet (SD1 = 20 July, SD2 = 4 August and
SD3 = 10 August) and Sorghum (SD1 = 15 August, SD2
= 23 August and SD3 = 27 August). Similar sowing
dates were applied as a treatment for fodder purpose for
each crop experiment. Maize, millet and sorghum
cultivar for grain purpose were Monsento-5219, HP-50
and JS-263, respectively. Maize, millet and sorghum
cultivar for fodder purpose were Sargodha 2002, MB-
87 and JS-2002, respectively. Field was ploughed 3-5
times with tractor mount cultivator and subsequently,
followed by planking at field capacity.
Sowing of maize, millet and sorghum for grain and
fodder purpose was done at particular sowing date Fig. 1: Daily maximum temperature, minimum
treatment. Sowing of maize, millet and sorghum crop temperature (a), rainfall and solar radiation (b)
during maize, millet and sorghum crops
for grain purpose crop was done with the help of a hand
growing season at Multan, Pakistan.
drill, in which plant to plant distance was 20 cm and
row to row distance was 65 cm. Fodder crops were
sown by broadcast method using 98, 80 and 15 kg ha-1
seed rate for maize, millet and sorghum, respectively.
However, the respective seed rate for grain crops was
37, 25 and 8 kg ha-1. Manual and mechanical weeding
was done for remove weeds. No weeding was done for
maize, millet and sorghum fodder purpose. Tube-well
irrigation water was applied to each experiment. Total
8, 5 and 4 irrigations were applied to each treatment of
maize, millet and sorghum crop, respectively for grain
purpose. Total 10, 7 and 6 irrigations were applied to
each treatment of maize, millet and sorghum crop,
respectively for fodder purpose. Recommended dose of
nitrogen (215, 85 and 65 kg ha-1 for maize, millet and
sorghum respectively) phosphorus (113, 55 and 43 kg
ha-1 for maize, millet and sorghum respectively) and
potassium (60, 35 and 30 kg ha-1 for maize, millet and
sorghum respectively) fertilizer were applied. Sources
of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were urea, Di
ammonium phosphate (DAP) and Potassium sulphate
(SOP), respectively. Whole Phosphorus and potassium
fertilizer was applied at sowing time. Two splits of
nitrogen fertilizer were applied at sowing and 35 days
after sowing for each treatment for each crop. Manual Fig. 2: Observed and simulated leaf area index (LAI) and
harvesting was done with the help of sickle at biomass of maize for fodder (a, b, and c) and grain
physiological maturity for grain purpose. Fodder crops (d, e, and f) crops as effected by sowing dates under
were harvested at 50% an thesis date. irrigated arid environment of Multan, Pakistan.

106
Ahmad et al

Plant sampling and measurements

Maize, millet and sorghum crops phonological and
developmental data for both grain and fodder purpose
were recorded by standard procedure. Anthesis and
physiological maturity dates were recorded at 50%
level. Samples of 150-200 g fresh biomass were oven-
dried at 75 ºC temperature for dry matter weights.
Sample of 150–200 g leaves were gained, then leaf area
was recorded with leaf area meter. Leaf area index
(LAI) was considered as ratio of leaf area to ground
area. Harvesting conducted manually from three middle
rows (1 m2) of every row to find out of biomass, fodder
and seed yield.
Description of the CSM-CERES-Maize, CSM-
CERES- Millet and CSM-CERES-Sorghum models
The CERES model of maize, millet and sorghum is
embedded in DSSAT 4.6.1 (Decision Support System
for Agro-technology Transfer) (Jones et al., 2003;
Hoogenboom et al., 2015) was employed in the
research. It is physio-biological based crop managing
practices focused model which exploits C, N, water and
energy equilibrium principles’ to imitate growth-
development of maize, millet and sorghum crops for
Fig. 3: Observed and simulated leaf area index (LAI) and both grain and fodder purpose (Folliard et al., 2004; Ma
biomass of millet for fodder (a, b, and c) and grain et al., 2006; Akponikpe et al., 2010; Waha et al., 2012).
(d, e, and f) crops as effected by sowing dates under The models compute the growth and developmental
irrigated arid environment of Multan, Pakistan. stages and phases of crops plants on each day steps and
as well as final grain and fodder yield is measured on
the day of harvesting (Matthews and Pilbeam, 2005;
Saseendran et al., 2005; Murty et al., 2007; Mubeen et
al., 2013). Inputs necessary for model executions
comprised crop managements practices, which are
included crop plant genetics, sowing and harvesting
dates, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium fertilizer use
levels, application dates/methods), ecological aspects
comprising physico-chemical properties of soil along
with weather circumstances including day-to-day
minimum/maximum temperatures, radiation, rainfall.
Statistics analysis
Performance of the DSSAT-CSM-CERES models of
maize, millet and sorghum crops for both fodder and
grain purpose were determined by RMSE (Wallach and
Goffinet, 1987) and d-index:
 n 
  P  O 
i i
2

RMSE (root mean square error)   i 1  ( Equation  I )
 n 
 
 
 n 
  Pi - Oi  
2

d - index  1 -  n i 1  ( Equation  II )
 ( P i  O i ) 2 
 
i 1

Fig. 4: Observed and simulated leaf area index (LAI) and
biomass of sorghum for fodder (a, b, and c) and According to Wilmot (1982), the model fit increases
grain (d, e, and f) crops as effected by sowing dates when d-index and RMSE approaches to unity and zero,
under irrigated arid environment of Multan, Pakistan respectively.

107
Application of DSSAT model for sowing date management of C4 summer cereals

biomass and grain yield data of field experiments was

close agreed with model predicted data for both fodder
and grain purpose. The lower values for root mean
square error (RMSE) and higher d-values close to one
revealed that the model predicted LAI and above-
ground biomass quite well.
Range of d-value was from 0.96 to 0.99 for both fodder
and grain purpose. RMSE value for leaf area index
(LAI) was 0.32, 0.11 and 0.26 for maize, millet and
sorghum, respectively for fodder purpose. 420.25,
298.04 and 268.36 was RMSE value for biomass for
maize, millet and sorghum fodder purpose crops,
respectively. The RMSE value for LAI was 0.25, 0.25
and 0.21 for maize, millet and sorghum, respectively
for grain purpose. 1169.91, 801.91 and 396.29 was
RMSE value for biomass for maize, millet and sorghum
grain purpose crops, respectively. Observed fodder and
grain yield for maize, millet and sorghum was well
agreed with simulated data of model. For fodder yield,
d-value was 0.98, 0.99 and 0.90 for maize, millet and
sorghum, respectively and 0.98, 0.99 and 0.96 was the
d-value for maize, millet and sorghum crops,
respectively for grain yield (Table 1; Figs. 2-4).
Model evaluation
Fig. 5: Simulated fodder and grain yield, respectively for Evaluation of CSM-CERES models of maize, millet
maize (a, b), millet (c, d) and sorghum (e, f) at and sorghum for fodder purpose were done with the
different sowing dates. Box limits represent 25th field experimental data recorded from remaining
and 75th percentiles, box central line represents
median, and outliers represent minimum and sowing dates 17 July and 2 August for maize, 4 and 10
maximum values. Simulated results were obtained August for millet, 15 and 23 august for sorghum. For
using combination of historical weather data for 34 grain purpose, same sowing date’s data was used for
years, maize, millet and sorghum crops and six model evaluation. A good agreement was obtained
sowing dates under irrigated arid environment of between observed phenological stages data of field
Multan, Pakistan. experiments and model simulated for both fodder and
grain purpose. Difference between model simulated and
RESULTS field trials was 1-2 days for anthesis and physiological
maturity for both grain and fodder purpose crops. The
Model calibration LAI, biomass and grain yield data of field experiments
The CSM-CERES models of maize, millet and sorghum was well agreed with model predicted data for both
were calibrated with the field trials data collected with fodder and grain purpose. The lower values for root
sowing dates 10 July, 10 August and 27 August, mean square error and higher d-values close to one
respectively for both grain and fodder purpose. showed that the model predicted LAI and above-ground
Calibrations of models were done with those sowing biomass quite well (Table 2).
dates which performed well as compare to other Range of d-value was from 0.98 to 0.99 for both fodder
treatments. The cultivars coefficients of Monsento- and grain purpose. RMSE value for leaf area index
5219, HP-50 and JS-263 for grain purpose and (LAI) was 0.20, 0.14 and 0.11 for maize, millet and
Sargodha 2002, MB-87 and JS-2002 for fodder purpose sorghum, respectively for fodder purpose.
were estimated with the help of trial-error along with 617.96, 216.76 and 239.85 was RMSE value for
comparing with field observed and model predicted biomass for maize, millet and sorghum fodder purpose
employing CSM-CERES models of maize, millet and crops, respectively. RMSE value for LAI was 0.12,
sorghum. 0.17 and 0.19 for maize, millet and sorghum,
A well agreement was gained between observed respectively for grain purpose. 1180.21, 753.43 and
phenological data of field experiments and model 298.36 was RMSE value for biomass for maize, millet
simulated for both fodder and grain purpose (Table 1). and sorghum for grain purpose crops, respectively.
Difference between model simulated and field trials Maize, millet and sorghum observed fodder and grain
was one day for anthesis and physiological maturity for yield was well agreed with simulated data of models.
both grain and fodder purpose crops. Leaf area index, For fodder production, d-value for maize, millet and

108
Ahmad et al

sorghum was 0.98, 0.99 and 0.90; respectively. 0.98, to investigate optimum sowing date options and to find
0.99 and 0.96 was the d-value for maize, millet and out the best ones to apply in better simulation of fodder
sorghum crops, respectively for grain yield. RMSE and grain yield (Folliard et al., 2004; Ma et al., 2006;
value was 547.92, 272.11 and 299.73 for maize, millet Akponikpe et al., 2010; Waha et al., 2012; Mubeen et
and sorghum, respectively for fodder yield. 194.17, al., 2016). The ability of the CSM-CERES-models of
122.62 and 143.64 was RMSE value for maize, millet maize, millet and sorghum to predict grain yield at
and sorghum, respectively for grain yield (Table 3; physiological maturity in arid and semi-arid
Figs. 2-4). environment was verified by various research studies.
Model application The results of model simulations illustrated that the
The CSM-CERES models of maize, millet and sorghum yield of early sowing dates was lower than the yield of
was applied to determine the optimum sowing date for delay sowing date in all grain and fodder crops
long term scenario for both fodder and grain yield (Bussmann et al., 2016; Waongo et al., 2015; Mahmood
simulation purpose. Historical weather data from 1980 et al., 2016). It was for the reason that of reduction in
to 2014 was used for long term simulation for both crop growth cycle predominantly the time from sowing
fodder and grain yield simulation purpose (Fig. 5). to the anthesis stage. The high crop environmental
Each 6varioussowing dates for each crop separately for temperature in early sowing dates has resulted in
grain and fodder yield were simulated employing accelerating crop growth stages, decreasing of crop
seasonal strategy of DSSAT Version 4.6.1 under canopy and reduction in biomass production which in
irrigated arid conditions. Simulation consequences were turn have led to decrease the fodder, grain yield and its
analyzed by means of the strategy analysis program of components (Gesch and Archer, 2005; Liu et al., 2013;
DSSAT to comparing the percentile distributions for Verma et al., 2013; Waha et al., 2013; Gerardeaux et
fodder and grain yield. Simulation scenario showed al., 2016). Optimum sowing date increased resources
that, average maximum fodder and grain yield at 50% use efficiency like fertilizer, irrigation etc (Murty et al.,
percentile for maize crop was obtained with sowing 2007; Mubeen et al., 2013). More earlier or more delay
date 10 July. Sowing date 4 August and 20 July gave sowing dates in these environmental conditions result in
maximum average grain and fodder yield, respectively diminish efficiency of solar radiation of a maize, millet
for millet crop for long term simulation. Sorghum crop and sorghum crop and result in reduction the
produced maximum mean grain and fodder yield at accumulation of total dry matter (Akponikpe et al.,
sowing date 23 August (Fig. 5). 2011; Teetor et al., 2011; Azrag and Dagash, 2015;
Rezaei et al., 2014). Delaying the sowing date beyond
DISCUSSION the optimum sowing date led to reduced fodder and
grain production because of the existence of low
Research results demonstrated that the CSM-CERES- temperatures during vegetative stage which decreases
models of maize, millet and sorghum for both fodder the crop growth rate as it was simulated by the CSM-
and grain purpose can be applied as an appropriate tool CERES-models of maize, millet and sorghum.

Table 1: Calibration of DSSAT model for C4 cereals at variable sowing dates for fodder and grain purpose crops under
irrigated arid environment of Multan, Pakistan
Fodder crops
characteristics Maize Millet Sorghum
(DAS) (DAS) (DAS)
Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim.
Phenology
Anthesis 66 67 54 55 60 61
Growth RMSE d-value RMSE d-value RMSE d-value
LAI (m2 m-2) 0.32 0.99 0.11 0.99 0.26 0.97
Biomass (kg ha-1) 420.25 0.99 298.04 0.99 268.36 0.99
Grain crops
Characteristics (DAS) (DAS) (DAS)
Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim.
Phenology
Anthesis 55 56 51 51 56 57
Maturity 99 100 95 96 111 112
Growth RMSE d-value RMSE d-value RMSE d-value
LAI (m2 m-2) 0.25 0.98 0.25 0.99 0.21 0.96
Biomass (kg ha-1) 1169.91 0.99 801.91 0.99 396.29 0.99
DAS = days after sowing; Obs. = observed; Sim = simulated; RMSE = root mean square error; LAI = leaf area index.

109
Application of DSSAT model for sowing date management of C4 summer cereals

Table 2: Evaluation of DSSAT model for C4 cereals at variable sowing dates for fodder and grain purpose crops under
irrigated arid environment of Multan, Pakistan
Fodder crops
characteristics Maize Millet Sorghum
(DAS) (DAS) (DAS)
Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim.
Phenology
Anthesis 67 68 56 58 58 60
Growth RMSE d-value RMSE d-value RMSE d-value
LAI (m2 m-2) 0.20 0.98 0.14 0.98 0.11 0.98
Biomass (kg ha-1) 617.96 0.95 216.76 0.97 239.85 0.95
Grain crops
Characteristics (DAS) (DAS) (DAS)
Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim. Obs. Sim.
Phenology
Anthesis 54 55 52 54 56 57
Maturity 104 106 92 93 103 104
Growth RMSE d-value RMSE d-value RMSE d-value
LAI (m2 m-2) 0.12 0.98 0.17 0.99 0.19 0.98
Biomass (kg ha-1) 1180.21 0.94 753.43 0.97 298.36 0.95
DAS = days after sowing; Obs. = observed; Sim = simulated; RMSE = root mean square error; LAI = leaf area index

Table 3: Observed and simulated fodder and grain yields of C 4 cereals at variable sowing dates at final harvesting under
irrigated arid environment of Multan, Pakistan
Crops Sowing dates Fodder yield (kg ha-1) Fodder yield (d-stat) LAI (d-stat) Biomass (d-stat)
Maize Sim. Obs.
10 Jul 11225 10852 0.99 0.99
17 Jul 9347 8539 0.98 0.99
02 Aug 6094 5761 0.93 0.99
Statistics 0.98
Millet 20 Jul 2237 2073 0.98 0.99
04 Aug 3780 3521 0.98 0.98
10 Aug 5995 5637 0.99 0.99
Statistics 0.99
Sorghum 15 Aug 5746 5482 0.98 0.99
23 Aug 4720 4507 0.97 0.99
27 Aug 5155 4762 0.97 0.99
Statistics 0.90
Crops Sowing dates Grain yield (kg ha-1) Grain yield (d-stat) LAI (d-stat) Biomass (d-stat)
Maize Obs. Sim.
10 Jul 5573 5740 0.98 0.99
17 Jul 4639 4881 0.98 0.98
2 Aug 4071 4234 0.97 0.98
Statistics 0.98
Millet 20 Jul 927 852 0.96 0.99
04 Aug 1836 1697 0.99 0.99
10 Aug 2506 2364 0.98 0.97
Statistics 0.99
Sorghum 15 Aug 1543 1365 0.98 0.99
23 Aug 2065 1892 0.98 0.99
27 Aug 2206 2189 0.97 0.98
Statistics 0.96
Obs. = observed; Sim = simulated; LAI = leaf area index

Conclusion resource-poor farmer community of Pakistan by giving

It can be conclude from the attained results that the alternate management decisions for fodder and grain
CSM-CERES-models of maize, millet and sorghum purpose crops. As such crop growth models can be
were reasonable well as pointed out by comparison of applied to determine the best management practices in
data between simulated crop phenology, total dry proportion with environmental circumstances. Further
matter accumulation, fodder and grain yields with field model evaluations might also be required for other
measured data. Crop growth models can support cultivars which are introduced for this area.

110
Ahmad et al

Authors’ contribution Azrag AAD and YMI Dagash, 2015. Effect of sowing
ZF, GA, MRK, HY, SN, MS, MA, NA, MA, AR, MK, date and nitrogen rate on growth, yield
ZA conducted field trials and literature review, SH, A, components of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)
MH, MR, RSB, AA, SN, HA, AAK, MA analyzed data and nitrogen use efficiency. Journal of
along with Figure work GS, MAK and MH wrote this Progressive Research in Biology, 2: 78-87
manuscript and SA supervised the study. All the Berzsenyi Z and DQ Lap, 2005. Responses of maize
authors contributed equally and read the manuscript (Zea mays L.) hybrids to sowing date, N
final draft before submission. fertilizer and plant density in different years.
Acknowledgements Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 53: 119-131.
This study was financially supported by the Bahauddin Boote KJ, JW Jones, G Hoogenboom and JW White,
Zakariya University, Multan and the Higher Education 2010. The role of crop systems simulation in
Commission (HEC), Islamabad, Pakistan. agriculture and environment. International
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
REFERENCES Information Systems 1: 41-54.
Bussmann A, NA Elagib, M Fayyad and L Ribbe, 2016.
Ahmad A, M Ashfaq, G Rasul, SA Wajid, T Khaliq, F Sowing date determinants for Sahelian rainfed
Rasul, U Saeed, M Habib ur Rahman, J agriculture in the context of agricultural
Hussain, IA Baig, SAA Naqvi, SAA Bokhari, policies and water management. Land Use
S Ahmad, W Nasim, G Hoogenboom and RO Policy, 52: 316-328.
Valdivia, 2015. Impact of climate change on Choi Y, H Gim, C Ho, S Jeong, SK Park and MJ
the rice-wheat cropping system of Pakistan. In: Hayes, 2016. Climatic influence on corn
Hillel D, and Rosenzweig C (eds.) Handbook sowing date in the Midwestern United States.
of Climate Change and Agro-ecosystems, Vol. International Journal of Climatology, In press.
3. Imperial College Press and the American (doi: 10.1002/joc.4799).
Society of Agronomy, pp. 219-258. Chunrong JI, Z Chen, Z Kuerban and YE Kai, 2013.
Ahmad S, H Ali, U Farooq, SU Khan, Atique-ur- Change of sugar contents and its relationship
Rehman, N Sarwar, AN Shahzad, H Dogan, S with meteorological factors among different
Hussain, MT Sultan, A Waheed, M Zia-ul- sowing dates of sweet sorghum. Desert and
Haq, K Hussain and MA Khan, 2016a. Oasis Meteorology, 3: 016.
Improving nitrogen and radiation-use- Dahmardeh M and M Dahmardeh, 2010. The effect of
efficiencies of C4 summer cereals by split sowing date and some growth physiological
nitrogen applications under irrigated arid index on grain yield in three maize hybrids in
environment. Turkish Journal of Agriculture Southeastern Iran. Asian Journal of Plant
and Forestry, 40: 280-289. Sciences, 9: 432-436.
Ahmad S, M Nadeem, G Abbas, Z Fatima, RJZ Khan, Dera J, LT Mpofu and B Tavirimirwa, 2014. Response
M Ahmed, A Ahmad, G Rasul and MA Khan, of pearl millet varieties to different dates of
2016b. Quantification of the effects of climate
sowing at Makoholi and Kadoma research
warming and crop management on sugarcane
stations, Zimbabwe. Academia Journal of
phenology. Climate Research, 71: 47-61.
Agricultural Research, 2: 110-113.
Akponikpe PBI, J Minet, B Gerard, P Defourny and CL
El-Lattief EAA, 2011. Growth and fodder yield of
Bielders, 2011. Spatial fields’ dispersion as a
forage pearl millet in newly cultivated land as
farmer strategy to reduce agro-climatic risk at
affected by date of planting and integrated use
the household level in pearl millet-based
systems in the Sahel: a modeling perspective. of mineral and organic fertilizers. Asian
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151: Journal of Crop Science, 3: 35-42.
215-227. Erickson JE, ZR Helsel, KR Woodard, JMB
Akponikpè PBI, B Gérard, K Michels and C Bielders, Vendramini, Y Wang, LE Sollenberger and
2010. Use of the APSIM model in long term RA Gilbert, 2011. Planting date affects
simulation to support decision making biomass and brix of sweet sorghum grown for
regarding nitrogen management for pearl biofuel across Florida. Agronomy Journal,
millet in the Sahel. European Journal of 103: 1827-1833.
Agronomy, 32: 144-154. Fang H, S Liang, G Hoogenboom, J Teasdale and M
Aziz A, HU Rehman and N Khan, 2007. Maize cultivar Cavigelli, 2008. Corn‐yield estimation through
response to population density and planting assimilation of remotely sensed data into the
date for grain and biomass yield. Sarhad CSM‐CERES‐Maize model. International
Journal of Agriculture, 23: 25-30. Journal of Remote Sensing, 29: 3011-3032.

111
Application of DSSAT model for sowing date management of C4 summer cereals

Fatondji D, A Bationo, R Tabo, JW Jones, A Adamou Hoogenboom G, JW Jones, PW Wilkens, CH Porter, KJ

and O Hassane, 2012. Water use and yield of Boote, LA Hunt, U Singh, JI Lizaso, JW
millet under the zai system: understanding the White, O Uryasev, R Ogoshi, J Koo, V Shelia
processes using simulation. In: Improving Soil and GY Tsuji, 2015. Decision Support System
Fertility Recommendations in Africa using the for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT),
Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Version 4.6.1 (www.dssat.net), DSSAT
Transfer (DSSAT), Springer Netherlands, pp. Foundation, Prosser, Washington, USA.
77-100. Ibrahim HI, SA Hassanen and EL Hassan, 2015.
Florio EL, JL Mercau, EG Jobbágy and MD Nosetto, Performance of forage millet in response to
2014. Interactive effects of water-table depth, different combinations of organic, inorganic-
rainfall variation, and sowing date on maize and bio-fertilizers. World Journal of
production in the Western Pampas. Agricultural Sciences, 11: 423-431
Agricultural Water Management, 146: 75-83. Iizumi T, G Sakurai and M Yokozawa, 2014.
Folliard A, PCS Traoré, M Vaksmann and M Kouressy, Contributions of historical changes in sowing
2004. Modeling of sorghum response to date and climate to US maize yield trend: An
photoperiod: a threshold–hyperbolic approach. evaluation using large-area crop modeling and
Field Crops Research, 89: 59-70. data assimilation. Journal of Agricultural
Gérardeaux E, F Affholder F, M Bernoux and B Muller, Meteorology, 70: 73-90.
2016. Relationships between tropical annual Iken JE and NA Amusa, 2004. Maize research and
cropping systems and climate change. In production in Nigeria. African Journal of
Climate Change and Agriculture Worldwide, Biotechnology, 3: 302-307.
Springer, Netherlands, pp. 109-124. Kucharik CJ, 2008. Contribution of planting date trends
Gesch RW and DW Archer, 2005. Influence of sowing to increased maize yields in the central United
date on emergence characteristics of maize States. Agronomy Journal, 100: 328-336.
seed coated with a temperature-activated Laux P, G Jäckel, RM Tingem and H Kunstmann,
polymer. Agronomy Journal, 97: 1543-1550. 2010. Impact of climate change on agricultural
GOP, 2015. Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2014-15. productivity under rainfed conditions in
Economic Advisory Wing, Finance Division, Cameroon—A method to improve attainable
Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, pp. 29– crop yields by planting date adaptations.
30. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 150:
Grassini P, J Thorburn, C Burr and KG Cassman, 2011. 1258-1271.
High-yield irrigated maize in the Western US Li CX, HS Feng, YG Zhao, XH Yao, SG Bai and YR
Corn Belt: I. On-farm yield, yield potential, Li, 2013. Sweet sorghum cultivation
and impact of agronomic practices. Field techniques. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 21: 114-122.
Crops Research, 120: 142-150. Lindquist JL, TJ Arkebauer, DT Walters, KG Cassman
Gueye M, G Kanfany, AFofana, K Noba and JH Grove, and A Dobermann, 2005. Maize radiation use
2015. Effect of planting date on growth and efficiency under optimal growth conditions.
grain yield of fonio millet Agronomy Journal, 97: 72-78.
(DigitariaexilisStapf) in the Southeast of Liu TP, GL Zhao, XL Ni, JL Hu, GM Chen and GX
Senegal. International Journal of Biological Ding, 2013. Effect of sowing time and
and Chemical Sciences, 9: 581-592. nitrogen fertilizer rate on growth period and
Gungula DT, JG Kling and AO Togun, 2003. CERES- yield of hybrid glutinous sorghum. Hubei
Maize predictions of maize phenology under Agricultural Sciences, 52: 3498-3450.
nitrogen-stressed conditions in Nigeria. Liu Z, KG Hubbard, X Lin and X Yang, 2013. Negative
Agronomy Journal, 95: 892-899. effects of climate warming on maize yield are
Han KJ, MW Alison, WD Pitman, DF Day, M Kim and reversed by the changing of sowing date and
L Madsen, 2012. Planting date and harvest cultivar selection in Northeast China. Global
maturity impact on biofuel feedstock Change Biology, 19: 3481-3492.
productivity and quality of sweet sorghum Ma L, G Hoogenboom, LR Ahuja, JC Ascough and SA
grown under temperate Louisiana conditions. Saseendran, 2006. Evaluation of the RZWQM-
Agronomy Journal, 104: 1618-1624. CERES-Maize hybrid model for maize
Han KJ, WD Pitman, MW Alison, DL Harrell, HP production. Agricultural Systems, 87: 274-
Viator, ME McCormick and DF Day, 2012. 295.
Agronomic considerations for sweet sorghum Mahmood A, MM Javaid, M Aziz, AN Shahzad, A
biofuel production in the South-central USA. Rehman and B Honermeier, 2016. Yield and
BioEnergy Research, 5: 748-758. quality response of sorghum hybrids to

112
Ahmad et al

different planting densities and sowing times. Rezaei EE, T Gaiser, S Siebert, B Sultan and F Ewert,
International Journal of Agriculture and 2014. Combined impacts of climate and
Applied Sciences (Pakistan), 4: 42-47. nutrient fertilization on yields of pearl millet in
Marteau R, B Sultan, V Moron, A Alhassane, C Baron Niger. European Journal of Agronomy, 55: 77-
and SB Traoré, 2011. The onset of the rainy 88.
season and farmers’ sowing strategy for pearl Santos RD, K Boote, L Sollenberger, AL Neves, LG
millet cultivation in Southwest Niger. Pereira, CB Scherer and LC Goncalves, 2016.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151: Simulated optimum sowing date for forage
1356-1369. pearl millet cultivars in multi location trials in
Maton L, D Leenhardt and JE Bergez, 2007. Geo- Brazilian semi-arid region. Frontiers in Plant
referenced indicators of maize sowing and Science, 7: 1320.
cultivar choice for better water management. Saseendran SA, DC Nielsen, DJ Lyon, L Ma, DG
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 27: Felter, DD Baltensperger and LR Ahuja, 2009.
377-386. Modeling responses of dryland spring triticale,
Matthews RB and C Pilbeam, 2005. Modelling the proso millet and foxtail millet to initial soil
long-term productivity and soil fertility of water in the High Plains. Field Crops
maize/millet cropping systems in the mid-hills Research, 113: 48-63.
of Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Saseendran SA, L Ma, DC Nielsen, MF Vigil and LR
Environment, 111: 119-139. Ahuja, 2005. Simulating planting date effects
Mubeen M, A Ahmad, A Wajid, T Khaliq and A on corn production using RZWQM and
Bakhsh, 2013. Evaluating CSM-CERES- CERES-Maize models. Agronomy Journal, 97:
Maize model for irrigation scheduling in semi-
58-71.
arid conditions of Punjab, Pakistan.
Soler CMT, N Maman, X Zhang, SC Mason and G
International Journal of Agriculture Biology,
Hoogenboom, 2008. Determining optimum
15: 1-10.
planting dates for pearl millet for two
Mubeen M, A Ahmad, A Wajid, T Khaliq, HM
contrasting environments using a modelling
Hammad, SR Sultana, S Ahmad, S Fahad and
approach. The Journal of Agricultural Science,
W Nasim. 2016. Application of CSM-CERES-
146: 445-459.
Maize model in optimizing irrigated conditions.
Outlook on Agriculture, 45: 173-184. Soler CMT, PC Sentelhas and G Hoogenboom, 2007.
Murty MVR, P. Singh, SP Wani, IS Khairwal and K Application of the CSM-CERES-Maize model
Srinivas, 2007. Yield gap analysis of sorghum for planting date evaluation and yield
and pearl millet in India using simulation forecasting for maize grown off-season in a
modeling. Global Theme on Agroecosystems subtropical environment. European Journal of
Report No. 37. Patencheru 502 324, Andhra Agronomy, 27: 165-177.
Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Sun H, X Zhang, S Chen, D Pei and C Liu, 2007.
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, pp. 82. Effects of harvest and sowing time on the
Nouna BB, N Katerji and M Mastrorilli, 2000.Using the performance of the rotation of winter wheat–
CERES-Maize model in a semi-arid summer maize in the North China Plain.
Mediterranean environment. Evaluation of Industrial Crops and Products, 25: 239-247.
model performance. European Journal of Tao F, S Zhang, Z Zhang and RP Rötter, 2014. Maize
Agronomy, 13: 309-322. growing duration was prolonged across China
Opsi F, R Fortina, G Borreani, E Tabaccoand and S in the past three decades under the combined
López, 2013. Influence of cultivar, sowing effects of temperature, agronomic
date and maturity at harvest on yield, management, and cultivar shift. Global
digestibility, rumen fermentation kinetics and Change Biology, 20: 3686-3699.
estimated feeding value of maize silage. The Tariq M, M Ayub, M Elahi, AH Ahmad, MN
Journal of Agricultural Science, 151: 740-753. Chaudhary and MA Nadeem, 2011. Forage
Rahman AA, EL Magboul and AE Nour, 2004. Effects yield and some quality attributes of millet
of sowing date and cultivar on the yield and (Pennisetum americannum L.) hybrid under
yield components of maize in northern Sudan. various regimes of nitrogen fertilization and
In: Integrated Approaches to Higher Maize harvesting dates. African Journal of
Productivity in the New Millennium: Agricultural Research, 6: 3883-3890.
Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern and Teetor VH, DV Duclos, ET Wittenberg, KM Young, J
Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, Chawhuaymak, MR Riley and DT Ray, 2011.
Nairobi, Kenya, February 5-11, 2002, pp: 295. Effects of planting date on sugar and ethanol

113
Application of DSSAT model for sowing date management of C4 summer cereals

yield of sweet sorghum grown in Arizona. and yield of wheat under semi-arid condition.
Industrial Crops and Products, 34: 1293-1300. International Journal of Agriculture and
Tovignan TK, D Fonceka, I Ndoye, N Cisse and D Biology, 6: 1119-1123.
Luquet, 2016. The sowing date and post- Wallach D and B Goffinet, 1987. Mean squared error of
flowering water status affect the sugar and prediction in models for studying ecological
grain production of photoperiodic, sweet and agronomic systems. Biometrics, 43: 561-
sorghum through the regulation of sink size 573.
and leaf area dynamics. Field Crops Research, Waongo M, P Laux and H Kunstmann, 2015.
192: 67-77. Adaptation to climate change: The impacts of
Tsimba R, GO Edmeades, JP Millner and PD Kemp, optimized planting dates on attainable maize
2013. The effect of planting date on maize yields under rainfed conditions in Burkina
grain yields and yield components. Field Faso. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
Crops Research, 150: 135-144. 205: 23-39.
Verma NK, 2013. Integrated nutrient management in Willmott CJ, 1982. Some comments on the evaluation
winter maize (Zea mays L.) sown at different of model performance. Bulletin American
dates. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Meteorological Society, 63: 1309-1313.
Science, 3: 161-167. Wolf J, K Ouattara and I Supit, 2015. Sowing rules for
Waha K, C Müller, ABondeau, JP Dietrich, P estimating rainfed yield potential of sorghum
Kurukulasuriya, J Heinke and H Lotze- and maize in Burkina Faso. Agricultural and
Campen, 2013. Adaptation to climate change Forest Meteorology, 214: 208-218.
through the choice of cropping system and Xingfen M, Y Kejun, Y Song, J Xiju, W Liyan and B
sowing date in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Lixia, 2015. Effects of different sowing dates
Environmental Change, 23: 130-143.
on yield and main agronomic traits of foxtail
Waha K, LGJ Van Bussel, C Müller and ABondeau,
millet. Journal of Heilongjiang Bayi
2012. Climate‐driven simulation of global crop
Agricultural University, 5: 12.
sowing dates. Global Ecology and
Zhou SD, YF Zhou and RD Huang, 2005. Effects of
Biogeography, 21: 247-259.
sowing time on leaf characteristics of sweet
Wajid A, A Hussain, A Ahmad, M Rafiq, AR Goheer
sorghum at different growth stages. Journal-
and M Ibrahim, 2004. Effect of sowing date
Shenyang Agricultural University, 36: 340.
and plant density on growth, light interception

114