Modelling crop growth and yield under the environmental changes induced by windbreaks 1. Model development and validation

Yield advantages of crops grown behind windbreaks have often been reported, but underlying principles responsible for such changes and their long-term consequences on crop productivity and hence farm income have rarely been quantified. Physiologically and physically sound simulation models could help to achieve this quantification. Hence, the APSIM systems model, which is based on physiological principles such as transpiration efficiency and radiation use efficiency (termed here APSIMTE), and the Soil Canopy Atmosphere Model (SCAM), which is based on the Penman–Monteith equation but includes a full surface energy balance, were employed in developing an approach to quantify such windbreak effects. This resulted in a modified APSIM version (APSIMEO), containing the original Penman equation and a calibration factor to account for crop- and site-specific differences, which were tested against field data and simulations from both the standard APSIMTE and SCAM models. The APSIMEO approach was tested against field data for wheat and mungbean grown in artificial enclosures in south-east Queensland and in south-east Western Australia. For these sheltered conditions, daily transpiration demand estimates from APSIMEO compared closely to SCAM. As the APSIMEO approach needed to be calibrated for individual crops and environments, average transpiration demand for open field conditions predicted by APSIMEO for a given site was adjusted to equal that obtained using APSIMTE by modifying a calibration parameter β. For wheat, a β-value of 1.0 resulted in best fits for Queensland, while for Western Australia a value of 0.85 was necessary. For mungbean a value of 0.92 resulted in the best fit (Qld). Biomass and yields simulated by APSIMTE and the calibration APSIMEO for wheat and mungbean grown in artificial enclosures were generally distributed around the 1:1 line, with R2 values ranging from 0.92 to 0.97. Finally, APSIMEO was run at 2 sites using long-term climate data to assess the likely year-to-year variability of windbreak effects on crop yields. Assuming a 70% reduction in wind speed as representing the maximum potential windbreak effect, the average yield improvement for the Queensland site was 13% for wheat and 3% for mungbean. For wheat at the WA site the average yield improvement from reduced wind speed was 5%. In any year, however, effects varied from negative, neutral to positive, highlighting the highly variable nature of the expression of windbreak effects. This study has shown how physical and biological modelling approaches can be combined to aid our understanding of systems processes. Both the environmental physics perspective and the biological perspective have shortcomings when issues that sit at the interface of both approaches need to be addressed. While the physical approach has clear advantages when investigating changes in physical parameters such as wind speed, vapour pressure deficit (VPD), temperature or the energy balance of the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum, it cannot deal with complex, biological systems adequately. Conversely, the crop physiological approach can handle such biological interactions in a scientific and robust way while certain atmospheric processes are not considered. The challenge was not to try and capture all these effects in 1 model, but rather to structure a modelling approach in a way that allowed for inclusion of such processes where necessary.

[1]  H. L. Penman Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass , 1948, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[2]  C. T. de Wit,et al.  Transpiration and crop yields. , 1958 .

[3]  J. Monteith Evaporation and environment. , 1965, Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology.

[4]  John L. Monteith,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL OF STOMATAL RESISTANCE IN THE FIELD , 1965 .

[5]  J. Doorenbos,et al.  Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements , 1977 .

[6]  R. Fischer Growth and water limitation to dryland wheat yield in Australia: a physiological framework [review]. , 1979 .

[7]  G. O'Leary,et al.  A simulation model of the development, growth and yield of the wheat crop , 1985 .

[8]  D. F. Wanjura,et al.  Cotton phenology parameters affected by wind , 1985 .

[9]  J. Monteith How do crops manipulate water supply and demand? , 1986, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[10]  Graeme L. Hammer,et al.  Effects of climatic variability and possible climatic change on reliability of wheat cropping. A modelling approach , 1987 .

[11]  J. Norman,et al.  22. Effects of shelter on plant water use , 1988 .

[12]  J. Kort 9. Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops , 1988 .

[13]  Raupach,et al.  Single layer models of evaporation from plant canopies are incorrect but useful, whereas multilayer models are correct but useless: discuss , 1988 .

[14]  Takeshi Horie,et al.  Leaf Nitrogen, Photosynthesis, and Crop Radiation Use Efficiency: A Review , 1989 .

[15]  G. Tuskan,et al.  Field Windbreak Management and Its Effect on Adjacent Crop Yield , 1990 .

[16]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Effect of tree root-pruning adjacent to windbreaks on corn and soybeans. , 1990 .

[17]  C. Spitters,et al.  Crop growth models: their usefulness and limitations. , 1990 .

[18]  J. Leys,et al.  The role of shelter in Australia for protecting soils, plants and livestock , 1992 .

[19]  The role of trees in sustainable agriculture — an overview , 1992 .

[20]  Holger Meinke,et al.  Potential soil water extraction by sunflower on a range of soils , 1993 .

[21]  Holger Meinke,et al.  A sunflower simulation model: I. Model development , 1993 .

[22]  Graeme L. Hammer,et al.  Assessing climatic risk to sorghum production in water-limited subtropical environments. I.Development and testing of a simulation model , 1994 .

[23]  Graeme L. Hammer,et al.  APSIM: a novel software system for model development, model testing and simulation in agricultural systems research , 1996 .

[24]  R. C. Muchow,et al.  Simulation of a legume ley farming system in northern Australia using the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator , 1996 .

[25]  Holger Meinke,et al.  Improving wheat simulation capabilities in Australia from a cropping systems perspective: water and nitrogen effects on spring wheat in a semi-arid environment , 1997 .

[26]  Holger Meinke,et al.  Improving wheat simulation capabilities in Australia from a cropping systems perspective III. The integrated wheat model (I_WHEAT) , 1998 .

[27]  Graeme L. Hammer Crop modelling: Current status and opportunities to advance , 1998 .

[28]  Holger Meinke,et al.  Assessing exceptional drought with a cropping systems simulator: a case study for grain production in northeast Australia , 1998 .

[29]  M. C. Crawford,et al.  Effect of artificial wind shelters on the growth and yield of rainfed crops , 2002 .

[30]  M. C. Crawford,et al.  The Australian National Windbreaks Program: overview and summary of results , 2002 .

[31]  Modelling crop growth and yield under the environmental changes induced by windbreaks. 2. Simulation of potential benefits at selected sites in Australia , 2002 .

[32]  J. Edwards,et al.  Windbreak research in a South Australian cropping system , 2002 .

[33]  H. Cleugh Parameterising the impact of shelter on crop microclimates and evaporation fluxes , 2002 .

[34]  A. Wright,et al.  Effect of windbreaks on potato production for the Atherton Tablelands of North Queensland , 2002 .

[35]  S. Puri,et al.  Effect of windbreak on the yield of cotton crop in semiarid regions of Haryana , 1992, Agroforestry Systems.

[36]  H. Cleugh,et al.  Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimates and crop yields , 1998, Agroforestry Systems.