4.4 Article

Potential of the APSIM model to simulate impacts of shading on maize productivity

Journal

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
Volume 92, Issue 6, Pages 1699-1709

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10457-017-0119-0

Keywords

Agroforestry; LAI; Light; Modelling

Funding

  1. CGIAR research programme on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
  2. ACIAR
  3. CSIRO

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A number of agroforestry models have been developed to simulate growth outcomes based on the interactions between components of agroforestry systems. A major component of this interaction is the impact of shade from trees on crop growth and yield. Capability in the agricultural production systems simulator (APSIM) model to simulate the impacts of shading on crop performance could be particularly useful, as the model is already widely used to simulate agricultural crop production. To quantify and simulate the impacts of shading on maize performance without trees, a field experiment was conducted at Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre, Ethiopia. The treatments contained three levels of shading intensity that reduced incident radiation by 0 (control), 50 and 75% using shade cloth. Data from a similar field experiment at Machakos Research Station, Kenya, with 0, 25 and 50% shading were also used for simulation. APSIM adequately simulated maize grain yield (r(2)=0.97) and total above-ground biomass (r(2)=0.95) in the control and in the 50% treatments at Melkassa, and likewise in the control (r(2)=0.99), 25% (r(2)=0.90) and 50% (r(2)=0.98) treatments at Machakos. Similarly, APSIM effectively predicted Leaf Area Index attained at the flowering (r(2)=0.90) and maturity (r(2)=0.94) stages. However, APSIM under-estimated maize biomass and yield at 75% shading. In conclusion, the model can be reliably employed to simulate maize productivity in agroforestry systems with up to 50% shading, but caution is required at higher levels of shading.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available