International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences.

Available online at www.ijagcs.com

IJACS/2012/4-22/1692-1700
ISSN 2227-670X 2012 IJACS Journal

Quantifying yield potential and yield gap forcorn(Zea

mays L.)in the Northeast Iran
Sara Sanjani, AlirezaKoocheki, Mehdi NassiriMahallati
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Faculty of Agriculture, Mashhad, Iran
Corresponding Author email:sanjani20_s@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: Quantifying the yield potential and gap between average farmer yields and yield potential is
essential to estimate future food production capacity and to improve policies and research to ensure local
food security. In order to quantify potential yield,yieldgapand identify the spatial variation of corn yield,
crop simulation model and Geographic Information System (GIS) were employed across Khorasan
provinces (Norther, Razavi (Central), Southern) in northeast of Iran. The CSM-CERES-Corn model
performed well to simulate yield of corn in this region. Results showed that average potential yield of corn
was 16.4, 14.1 and 10.2 t ha-1 for Northern, central and Southern parts of Khorasan province respectively.
It seems that the high temperature in the Southern part is the limiting factor. The high yield gap of 9.7,
8.61 and 6.28 t ha-1 was estimated for Northern, central and Southern of Khorasan province, respectively.
Regions with higher yield potential showed a higher yield gap. Results of the study will facilitate
identification of limiting factors for improvement of current corn yield in the area.
Keywords:Corn, Crop simulation model, DSSAT, Geographic Information System, Spatial variability.

INTRODUCTION
Demand for food is quickly rising and will rise with increases in global population while the quantity and
quality of essential natural resources, such as land and water, are declining.By 2030, global cereal demand for
food and animal feed is expected to total 2.8 billion tons per year, or 50% higher than in 2000 (Bruinsma, 2003),
andglobal agricultural production must increase by 70% to meet demand by 2050 (Bruinsma, 2009). In this
situation, there is an urgent need to develop more efficient and sustainable agricultural production systems to feed
the growing population. On the other hand, the success of the agriculture sector depends on the sustainable use of
the natural resources.These concerns are particularly true in developing countries such as Iran.
Khorasan province which is located in the Northeast of Iran, owns the highestcountrywidecultivated lands
(1,433,000 ha) (FAO, 2010)with a crucial role in the agricultural economy of the country and cereals are the major
crops (752,000ha) which is covered 50% of cultivated areain this region (KhorasanJehad-Agriculture Organization,
2010). Corn (Zea mays L.) is the third high consuming crop after wheat and rice in Iran which is importupto two
million tonnes each year (Jehad -Agriculture Organization, 2011). Since,corn is a significant item that comprises
the country's agricultural imports, further research is necessary in order to improve corn production and
productivity.
In order to increase production opportunities for expansion of cultivated land are limited to achieve as
competition for land with urban area and also other area are less suitable for agriculture due to poor soil fertility,
salinity and shortage of water specially in arid and semiarid regions in Iran. In the past three decades, only a
quarter of the world's food production increased by expansion of the cultivated area and the restoffood increased
by improving the production per unit area (IFPRI, 1994). Therefore, improving corn production cannot come from
area expansion and it seems that the best strategy is increasing crop productivity to narrow the yield gap. In order
to achieve this goal, it is important to explore the production potential of crop, quantify yield gap and toidentify
limiting factors for improving yield. Several studies have shown that assessment of potential yield and yield gaps
can help in identifying the yield limiting factors, developing suitable strategies to improve the productivity of a crop
and increasing resource-use efficiency and sustainability(Lansigan et al., 1996; Evenson et al., 1997; Naab et al.,
2004; Bhatia et al., 2008). The yield potential is yield of an adapted crop variety when grown under favorable
conditions without growth limitations from water, nutrients, pests or diseases which is determined by solar radiation,
temperature (Evans, 1993). Achieve yield potential not only requires the best management in all yield determining
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

and limiting factors (may not possible under field experiments) but alsoidentifying yields at different production
levels and quantifying yield gaps through field experiments are time consuming and expensive. In recent years,
yield potential is estimated by dynamic crop simulation modelswhich assume perfect management. Crop simulation
model as a powerful tools have been used to estimate yield potential at different scales from a specific field (Jones
et al., 2003) to a region or country (Caldiz et al., 2002). Although, before using a crop model, it needs to be
thoroughly calibrated and evaluated for a given region to establish its credibility (Boote et al., 1996).
The CSM-CERES-Corn(Ritchie et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2003)which is embedded in the Decision Support
System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) (Hoogenboom et al., 1999) is one of such models which have been
developed to simulate vegetative and reproductive development, growth and yield as function of crop
characteristics, climatic factors, soil characteristics and crop managements. TheCSM-CERES-Corn has been
evaluated extensively for differentsoil types and for a range of climatic conditions and with variouscorn hybrids
(ONeal et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2003: Soler et al., 2007).
Several studies have investigated the potential yield and yield gaps of different crops including corn using
crop simulation models. For example, Grassini et al. (2009) estimated average corn yield potential to range
between 11.4 and 16.1Mgha1 across 18 locations in the Western U.S. Corn Belt based on simulation modeling
using 20 years of weather records and site-specific management. Abeledo et al., (2008) using the Ceres-Wheat
model, estimated potential yield and analyzed to what degree N fertilization constitutes for reducing the gap
between attainable and potential yield.
Spatial variation of potential yield and yield gap of wheat were studied using SUCROS model in Khorasan
provinces, Iran. The results indicated that regions with higher yield potential showed a higher yield gap and
actual:potentialyieldratesof wheat in central and Southern parts ofKhorasan province with the highest and the
lowest yield potentials was estimated as 0.37 and 0.42, respectively (Nassiri and Koocheki, 2010).
The objectives of this study were (1)toquantify potential yield of corn,(2)to identify the spatial variability of
corn yield,(3)quantifying the existing gap between potential and actual corn yield in different areas across
Northeast of Iran using crop simulation model and Geographic Information System (GIS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study site
Khorasan provinces (Northern, Razavi (Central) and Southern) with total area of 242,670 km2
N East longitude) (Fig. 1) was
selected for this study because the northeast of Iran is one the most important agricultural production areas in Iran.
It lies in arid and semi-arid zone. Average annual precipitation in this region ranges from 165 to 275 mm, most of
which fall during the winter month.

Figure 1.Geographical study location and the location of meteorological stations () used in this study.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

Crop
Corn is one of the crops grown under irrigated in the northeast of Iran. Crop management data related to
agronomic practices such as date of planting and harvesting were kept constant at optimal recommended
guidelines for the region given by Khorasan Agriculture Organization. The actual corn yield (farmer's field) was
collected from different areas across the provinces.

Climate data
Climate information was obtained from the meteorological stations located within the study area (Fig.1).
Depending on data availability, the recorded year was different for each station, although it was 20 years at least in
each station. The variables were daily maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation and sunny hours.
Sunshine duration was converted into solar radiation using Angstrom equation (Eq. 1)(Van Laar et al., 1997).
(1)

Where S/So is the daily global solar radiation, nisthe sunny hours duration, Nis the day length, and a and b are
empirical coefficients.

CSM-CERES-Corn model
The CSM-CERES-Corn model is one of the most popular and high visibility models (Pecetti and Hollington,
1997). Furthermore, it hasbeen tested in many sites across the world and the results indicated its capability to
simulate grain yields under dry conditions (Rinaldi 2004; Lopez-Cedron et al., 2005).This model was calibrated
based on measured data for different experiments conducted oncorn at the experimental station of the College of
Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in the central part of Khorasan province. Measured data were include
dates of emergence, anthesis, and maturity, leaf area index and biomass in different growth stage as well as final
yield and yield components for SC704 cultivar (late maturity)whichismostly sown in the provinces.For calibration,
the genetic coefficients for this variety were obtained respectively, starting with the phenological development
parameters related to anthesis and maturity dates, followed by the crop growth parameters related kernel filling rate
and kernels number per plant (Hunt and Boote, 1998).
The model was evaluated using corn yield data collected from research stations
acrossKhorasanprovinces.Evaluation was done by comparing the simulated values with observed values and by
different statistical indices including Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the index of agreement (d-stat) which
indicate the degree of agreement between the simulated values with their corresponding observed values.
The %RSME was computed according toLoague and Green (1991) with Eq. (2)
(2)

Where n is the number of observation, Pi and Oi are simulated and observed values, respectively and is
mean of observed value.
The index of agreement was computed using the equation(2) (Willmott et al., 1985):
(3)

! " "

Where n is the number of observation, Pi and Oi are simulated and observed values, respectively, is the
overall mean of observed values - = Oi - . The closer the index value is to one, the better the
agreement between the two variables that are being compared.
The yield gapwasdefinedas the difference between yield potential and average actual regional yields,
where actual yield is on the farmers fieldsyield(Lobell et al., 2009).

Geographic Information System (GIS)

A GIS database was developed and used to present simulation results. The database included spatial
distribution of temperature, precipitation and simulated potential yield with the gap between potential and actual
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

yield. Using database, point data were interpolated to generate maps for entire province. The inverse distance
weighting (IDW)andKriginginterpolationmethodswereused (Wu et al., 2006).
When applying a crop simulation model at regional scale, two methods can be used: simulate first and
interpolate results on a grid or interpolate first inputs on a grid and then calculate model outputs at grid (Wu et al.,
2006). Stein et al. (1991) and Bechini et al (2000) showed that the first method resulted in smaller mean square
differences between predicted and observed values than the second method. In this study the first method was
used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Calibration and evaluation of the crop model

Estimation of genetic coefficient
The CSM-CERES-Corn model includes six geneticcoefficients that define phenology and growth. The best
combination of genetic coefficient that reduced the differences between simulated and observed data for phenology
and grain yield for the Singlecross704 (SC704) which is the long season hybrid(need 130 to 140 days for maturity)
are shown in Table 1. The value for P1 (thermal time from seedling emergence to the end of the juvenile phase)
and P5 (thermal time from silking to physiological maturity) were set to 350.2and 750.4 Cday, based on the
RMSE% and index of agreement (d-stat) in observed and simulated values for anthesis and maturity day (Table
2). The coefficient P2 (extent to which development is delayed for each hour increase in photoperiod above the
longest photoperiod at which development proceeds at a maximum rate) estimatedto be equal to 1.0 since the
daylengthin part of the growing season was more than the critical photoperiod, i.e., 12.5 h. The values for G2 (the
maximum possible number of kernels per plant) and G3 (kernel filling rate) were set to755.4 (number per plant) and
7.81 mg day1 based on the lowest difference between observed and simulated yield and yield component (Table
2). The phyllochroninterval(PHINT) was set 49 Cdaybased on observed leaf area index during growing season.

Table 1.Calculated genetic coefficients used with the CSM-CERES-Corn model

Genotype P1 ( Cday) P2 (days) P5 ( Cday) G2 (Nr) G3 (mg day1) PHINT ( Cday)
SC704 350.2 1.05 750.5 755.4 10 49

P1: Thermal time from seedling emergence to the end of the juvenile phase (expressed in degree days,
Cday, above a base temperature of 8 C) during which the plant is not responsive to changes in photoperiod. P2:
Extent to which development (expressed as days) is delayed for each hour increase in photoperiod above the
longest photoperiod at which development proceeds at a maximum rate (which is considered to be 12.5 h). P5:
Thermal time from silking to physiological maturity (expressed in degree days above a base temperature of 8 C).
G2: Maximum possible number of kernels per plant. G3: Kernel filling rate during the linear grain filling stage and
under optimum conditions (mg day1). PHINT: Phyllochron interval; the interval in thermal time (degree days)
between successive leaf tip appearances (Hoogenboom et al., 1994).

Table 2.Comparison of simulated and observed value by Root Mean-squared Error (RMSE), Index of agreement (d-stat), and
R2 methods.
2
Parameters %RMSE d-index R
Anthesis day 1.86 0.94 1
Physiological maturity day 2.99 0.79 0.98
Leaf Area Index 13.1 0.97 0. 82
Grain yield 4.41 0.86 0.99
Biological yield 8.78 0.69 0.64

Model Evaluation
Evaluation of the CSM-CERES-Corn model with the experimental data collected at two locationsin various
years indicated that the model predicted grain yield reasonably well and revealed similar average values between
observed and predicted values, e.g., 13.72 ton ha-1for observed and 13.75 ton ha-1 for simulated at potential
condition. The value of %RMSE for grain yield was 10.4, while d value was 0.91, indicating a good agreement
between the simulated and observed values. Hence, these results confirming the ability of the CSM-CERES-Corn
model for simulating the grain yield of corn grown in these regions (Figure 2).
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

This result is in agreement with the previous studies showing the CSM-CERES-Corn can predict yield
accurately for a wide range of environmental conditions(Jagtap et al., 1993; Ritchie and Alagarswamy, 2003).
Evaluation of the CSM-CERES-Corn model for its ability to simulate growth, development, grain yield for four
different maturity corn hybrids grown off-season in a subtropical region of Brazil showed that the model was able to
simulate phenology and grain yield for the four hybrids accurately, with RMSE (expressed in percentage) less than
15% (Soler et al., 2007) . Zhengyu et al. (2009) indicated that CSM-CERES-Corn model can predict various hybrid
yields reasonably well across a widerange of environmentsand can be used in North Carolina to simulate Corn
growth under non- limiting N conditions.

18

RMSE% = 10.4
d = 0.91
16
Simulated yield (ton ha-1)

14

12

10

8 10 12 14 16 18

Observed yield (ton ha-1)

Figure 2. Comparison of simulated and measured grain yield at harvest of Corn cultivar SC704 using experimental data sets in
potential condition (n = 18).

Spatial variation for potential and actual yield

Long-term average predicted potential yields varied from 8 to 17 ton ha-1 in the Khorasan province, with an
overall mean of 16.4, 14.1 and 10.2 ton ha-1fornorthern, central and southern of Khorasan province, respectively
(Table 3). In general, potential yields decrease from North to South, the major reason for the lower yield potential in
south and central west appears to be higher temperature and faster accumulation of growing degree days (Figure
3,4). Potential yield of a crop depends on determining factors including day length, incoming radiation, temperature,
carbon dioxide concentration and cultivar characteristic(Penning de Vries and Rabbinge, 1995),within these
factors, high temperatures determine the period of crop growth. Muchow et al. (1999) indicated that high
temperature decreased the duration of growth and corn grain yield, despite high levels of radiation and only at
locations with low temperature and consequently long growth duration, and with high radiation were corn yields
simulated high.
Investigation oncorn potential yield at different environments in US showed that the area with higher
temperature often hastens crop maturity and results to the lower potential yield, it issuggested that both changing
the planting date and growing a longer-season hybrid may be options for achieving a higher yield (Dobermann et
al., 2003).
Average actual yields varied from 3 to 8 ton ha-1 in the Khorasan provinces, with an overall mean of 6.8,
5.49 and 3.92 ton ha-1 for northern, central and southern parts of province, respectively (Table 3). Spatial variation
of actual yield was similar to potential yield, on the other hand, zones with higher potential yield showed higher
actual yield. So, the actual yield was higher in the northern and central parts than the southern part of Khorasan
province (Figure. 3). The limiting factor including water, nutrient, and diseases, weeds and pets which considered
yield reducing factors lead to low yield in farmers fields (Lobell et al., 2009). In addition, crop yield can be affected
by other management practices such as planting date(Soler et al., 2007; Nassiri and Koocheki, 2010) and plant
density (Subedi and Ma., 2009).
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

Figure 3.Simulated potential yield (right) of corn in the Khorasan provinces.

A B

Figure 4.Spatial variability of maximum temperature yield (left), and actualre (A), minimum temperature (B), and precipitation (C)
in Khorasan provinces.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

Yield Gap
Average simulated yield obtained for a location was compared with the average actual yield of corn to
calculate the yield gap. The yield gap between potential and actual yield varied between 9.7ton ha-1in the northern,
and 6.28 ton ha-1in Southernthe of the provinces (Table 3 and Figure 5). There was a largedifference between
thesimulatedpotential yield and the actual yields which was lower in the southern than northern and central parts of
Khorasan, although the ratio actual:potential yield was lower than the other parts. The gap between potential yield
andactual yield was higher in years with higher potential yield (Albeledo et al., 2008). Several studies for various
crops showed that the higher the potential yield, the higher the gap (Caldiz et al., 2002; Nassiri and Koocheki,
2010). Grassini et al. (2011) estimated yield potential, yield gaps, andthe impact of agronomic practiceoncornand
showed that average yield gap was 11% of simulated yield potential.

Table 3. Average yield potential, actual yield, yield gap and actual:potential yield ratio at different parts of khorasan province at
different parts of khorasan provinces.
Yield Potential Actual Yield Yield Gap
Khorasan Provinces -1 -1 -1 A/P yield
(t ha ) (t ha ) (t ha )
Northern 16.5 6.80 9.70 0.41
Razavi (Central) 14.1 5.49 8.61 0.39
Southern 10.2 3.92 6.28 0.38

Figure 5. Yield gaps between potential and actual yield of corn in Khorasan provinces.

CONCLUSION

In this study, crop simulation model was employed to quantify the potential yield of corn in Khorasan
provinces and based on the simulated potential and actual yields, yield gap was identified. In this respect, CSM-
CERES-Corn model performed well to simulate grain yield of corn. The Highest average potential yields were
simulated for locations in the north and central parts of Khorasan province. Moving further south, average potential
yield declined slightly, probably due to high temperature which hastens growing duration. Results showed a large
difference between the simulated potential yield and the actual yields which was lower in the southern than
northern and central parts of Khorasan. It seems that the yield gap can be narrowed by increasing efforts in
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

research and extension in crop management practicesor by improves access to inputs.Further studies will be
needed to determine the most important crop management factors that limit grain yield of cornfor improvement of
current corn yield.

REFERENCES

Abeledo LG, Savin R, Slafer GA. 2008. Wheat productivity in the Mediterranean Ebro Valley: Analyzing the gap between attainable and
potential yield with a simulation model. European Journal of Agronomy. 28: 541-550.
Bechini L, Ducco G, Donatelli M, Stein A. 2000.Modeling, interpolation and stochastic simulation in space and time of global solar radiation.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 81: 2942.
Bhatia VS, Singh P, Wani SP, Chauhan GS, KesavaRao AVR, Mishra AK, Srinivas K. 2008.Analysis of potential yields and yield gaps of rainfed
soybean in India using CROPGRO-Soybean model.Agriculture and Forest Meteorology. 48: 1252-1265.
Boot KJ, Jones JW, Pickeing NB. 1996. Potential uses and limitation of crop models. Agronomy Journal. 88: 704-716.
Bruinsma J. 2009. The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water, and crop yields need to increase by 2050? In: Expert Meeting
on How to Feed the World in 2050, FAO, Rome.
Bruinsma J. (ed). 2003. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective. Rome: Earthscan.
Caldis DO, Gaspari F J, Haverkort AJ, Struik PL. 2002. Agro-Ecological Zoning at the regional level: Spaio-Temporal variation in potential yield
of potato crop in the Argentinian Patagonia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 88: 3-10.
Dobermann AR, Arkebauer T J, Cassman G, Drijber RA, Lindquist J, Specht J E, Walters DT, Yang H, Miller D, Binder DL, Teichmeier G,
Ferguson RB, Wortmann CS. 2004. Understanding Corn Yield Potential in Different Environments.Agronomy - Faculty
Publications.Paper 317.
Evans LT. 1993.Crop Evolution, Adaptation, and Yield. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. 500 pp.
Grassini P, Thorburn J, Burr C, Cassman KG. 2011. High-yield irrigated corn in the Western U.S. Corn Belt: I. On-farm yield, yield potential, and
impact of agronomic practices. Field Crops Research. 120: 142-150.
Grassini P, Yang H, Cassman KG. 2009. Limits to corn productivity in Western Corn-Belt: a simulation analysis for fully-irrigated and rainfed
conditions. Agr.ForestMeteorol. 149: 12541265.
Hoogenboom G, Jones JW, Wilkens PW, Batchelor WD, Bowen WT, Hunt LA, Ickering NB, Singh U, Godwing DC, Baer B, Boote KJ, Ritchie
JT, White JW. 1994. Crops models. In: Tsuji GY, Uehara G, Balas S (eds.). DSSAT version 3, Volume 2-2. University of Hawaii,
Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 95244.
Hoogenboom G, Wilkens PW, Thornton PK, Jones JW, Hunt LA, Imamura DT. 1999. Decision support system for agrotechnology transfer v3.5.
In: Hoogenboom, G., Wilkens, P.W., Tsuji, G.Y. (Eds.), DSSAT version 3, vol. 4 (ISBN 1-886684-04-9). University of Hawaii, Honolulu,
HI, pp. 1 _/36.
Hunt LA, Boote KJ. 1998. Data for model operation, calibration and evaluation. In: Tsuji GY, Hoogenboom G, Thornton PK (eds.),
Understanding Options for Agricultural Production. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 939.
IFPRI. 1994. World food trends and future food security. Food Policy Report, The International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC,
25 pp.
Jagtap SS, Mornu M, Kang BT. 1993.Simulation of growth, development, and yield of corn in the transition zone of Nigeria. Agric. Syst. 41: 215
229.
Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter CH, Boote KJ, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Wilkens PW, Singh U, Gijsman AJ, Ritchie JT. 2003.The DSSAT
cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18: 235265.
KhorasanJehad-Agriculture Organization. 2010. Statistics of agricultural products in Khorasan province. http://www.koaj.ir/. ttp://www.dpe.agri-
jahad.ir/statistics
Lansigan FP, Bouman BAM, Aggarwal PK. 1996. Yield gaps in selected rice-producing areas in the Philippines. In: Aggarwal PK, Lansigan FP,
Thiyagarajan TM, Rubia EG (Eds.), Towards Integration of Models in Rice Research. SAARP Research Proceedings, Wegeningen and
Los Bafios, pp. 1118.
Loague K, Green RE. 1991. Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating solute transport models: Overview and application. J. Contam.
Hydrol. 7: 5173.
Lobell DB, Cassam KG, Field CB. 2009. Crop Yield Gaps: Their Importance, Magnitudes, and Causes. Annual Review of Environment and
Resource. 34: 1-26.
Lopez-Cedron FX, Boote KJ, Ruiz-Nogueira B, Sau F. 2005. Testing CERES-Corn versions to estimatecorn production in a cool environment.
Eur J Agron. 23: 89102.
Muchow RC, Sinclair TR, Bennett JM. 1999. Temperature and solar radiation effects on potential corn yield across location. Agronomy Journal.
82(2): 338-343.
Naab JB, Singh P, Boote KJ, Jones JW, Marfo KO. 2004. Using CROPGRO-Peanut model to quantify yield gaps in the Guinean Savanna zone
of Ghana. Agron. J. 96: 12311242.
NassiriMahallati M, Koocheki A. 2010.Agroecological zoning of wheat in Khorasan provinces: Estimating yield potential and yield gap. Iranian
Field Crop Research. 7(2): 695-709.
ONeal MR, Frankenberger JR, Ess DR. 2002.Use of CERES-Corn to study effect of spatial precipitation variability on yield.Agricultural System.
73: 205-225.
Pecetti L, Hollington PA. 1997. Application of the CERES-Wheat simulation model to durum wheat in two diverse Mediterranean environments.
Eur J Agron. 6: 125139.
Penning de Vries FWT, Rabbinge R. 1995. Models in research and education, planning and practice. In: Haverkort, A.J., MacKerron, D.K.L.
(Eds.), Potato Ecology and Modelling of Crops Under Conditions Limiting Growth. Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 118.
Rinaldi M. 2004. Water availability at sowing and nitrogen management of durum wheat: a seasonal analysis with the CERES-Wheat model.
Field Crops Research. 89: 2737.
Ritchie JT, OTTER S. 1985. Description and performance of CERES-Wheat: a user oriented wheat yield model. In ARS Wheat Yield Project
(Ed. W. O. Willis), pp. 159175.ARS-38.National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1692-1700, 2012

Ritchie JT, Alagarswamy G. 2003. Model concepts to express genetic differences in corn yield components. Agron. J. 95: 49.
Ritchie JT, Singh U, Godwin DC, Bowen WT. 1998.Cereal growth, development and yield. In: Tsuji GY, Hoogenboom G, Thornton PK (Eds.),
Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluver Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. The Netherlands, pp. 7998.
Ritchie JT. 1986. CERES-Wheat: A General Documentation. USDAARS.Grassland, Soil and Water Resource Laboratory, Temple, Texas.
Soler CMT, Sentelhas p, Hoogenboom G. 2007.Application of the CSM-CERES-Corn model for planting date evaluation and yield forecasting
for corn grown off-season in a subtropical environment.Euro. J. Agron. 27: 165-177.
Statistics FAO. 2010. http://faostat.fao.org (accessed 12 August 2010).
Stein A, Staritsky IG, Bouma J, Van Eijnsbergen AC, Bregt AK. 1991. Simulation of moisture deficits and a real interpolation by universal
cokriging. Water Resour. Res. 27: 19631973.
Subedi KD, Ma BL. 2009. Assessment of some major yield-limiting factors on corn production in humid temperature environment.Field Crops
Research. 110: 21-26.
Tsuji GY, Uhera G, Balas S. 1994.DSSAT v3. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
Van Laar HH, Goudriaan J, Van Keulen H. 1997. SUCROS97: Simulation of crop growth for potential and water-limited production situations.
C.T. de Wit Graduate School for Production Ecology and Resource Conservation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 52.
Willmott CJ, Akleson GS, Davis RE, Feddema JJ, Klink KM, Legates DR, donnell J, Rowe CM. 1985.Statistics for the evaluation and
comparison of models. J. Geophys. Res. 90: 89959005.
Wu D, Yu Q, Lu C, Hengsdijk H. 2006.Quantifying production potentials of winter wheat in the North China Plain.Euro. J. Agron. 24: 226235.
Zhengyu Y, Wilkerson GG, Buol GS, Bowman DT, Heiniger RW. 2009. Estimating Genetic Coefficients for the CSM-CERES-Corn Model in
North Carolina Environments. Agronomy Journal. 101(5): 1276-1285.