Paper · 2024 · Agricultural Water Management

Evaluating corn production under different plant spacings through integrated modeling approach and simulating its future response under climate change scenarios

Junaid Nawaz Chauhdary; Hong Li; Nadeem Akbar; et al.

15
claims
34
verbatim quotes
25
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

The use of advanced resource conservation techniques is the need of time for higher crop production under the challenges of water scarcity and climate change. The present study was planned (1) to evaluate different plant spacing of corn, sown under raised bed planting (RBP) for higher productivity, (2) calibrate APSIM model for experimental treatments and (3) simulate future (2022–2100) crop response under different scenarios of climate change. The two-year research experiments were conducted on corn with four different plant spacings (S1:15 cm, S2:17.5 cm, S3:20 cm and S4:22.5 cm) under RBP. The crop response was evaluated in terms of leaf area index (LAI), plant height, flowering date, grains per cob, grain yield, biomass yield, harvest index (HI) and water productivity. The S1 treatment produced the highest productivity in terms of grain yield (7.16 Mg/hm2), biomass yield (16.57 Mg/hm2), HI (0.44) and water productivity (1.33 kg/m3). APSIM model was calibrated and its ability to simulate crop response during validation was confirmed from the values of RMSE, NRMSE, R2, CRM and NSE as 0.4, 0.21, 0.83, 0.04 and 0.68 for grain yield. The RMSE and NRMSE were 0.79 and 0.14 for biomass yield. The value of R2 ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, CRM from –0.03 to 0.005, NSE from 0.69 to 0.86 for biomass yield, plant height and LAI. During scenario simulations, the model run was performed against different plant spacing for optimization and results revealed that 10 cm plant spacing produced highest corn yield and growth parameters. Further simulations (2022–2100) were performed using climatic data, acquired from different general circulation model (GCMs) for two rcps (4.5 and 8.5) and results revealed the reduction in grain and biomass yields by 8–14 % and 10–28 %, respectively against different data sources (GCMs). Optimized plant spacing (10 cm) under RBP produced 35.5 % more grain yield and 29.3 % more biomass yield than that under control treatment (ridge-furrow system). Based on the research findings, it is recommended that conservation technique like RBP needs to be adopted in semi-arid regions to mitigate the impact of climate change in terms of future temperature rise for better corn production.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 15 cm spacing, corn grain yield was highest at 7.16 Mg/hm2.

Treatment
S1:15 cme1
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
7.16 Mg/hm2e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The S1 treatment produced the highest productivity in terms of grain yield (7.16 Mg/hm2), biomass yield (16.57 Mg/hm2), HI (0.44) and water productivity (1.33 kg/m3).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 784–950 · show in text ↑
e1

“S1:15 cm, S2:17.5 cm, S3:20 cm and S4:22.5 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–587 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 15 cm spacing, corn biomass yield was highest at 16.57 Mg/hm2.

Treatment
S1:15 cme1
Outcome
biomass yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
16.57 Mg/hm2e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The S1 treatment produced the highest productivity in terms of grain yield (7.16 Mg/hm2), biomass yield (16.57 Mg/hm2), HI (0.44) and water productivity (1.33 kg/m3).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 784–950 · show in text ↑
e1

“S1:15 cm, S2:17.5 cm, S3:20 cm and S4:22.5 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–587 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 15 cm spacing, corn harvest index was highest at 0.44.

Treatment
S1:15 cme1
Outcome
HIe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
0.44e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The S1 treatment produced the highest productivity in terms of grain yield (7.16 Mg/hm2), biomass yield (16.57 Mg/hm2), HI (0.44) and water productivity (1.33 kg/m3).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 784–950 · show in text ↑
e1

“S1:15 cm, S2:17.5 cm, S3:20 cm and S4:22.5 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–587 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 15 cm spacing, corn water productivity was highest at 1.33 kg/m3.

Treatment
S1:15 cme1
Outcome
water productivitye0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1.33 kg/m3e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The S1 treatment produced the highest productivity in terms of grain yield (7.16 Mg/hm2), biomass yield (16.57 Mg/hm2), HI (0.44) and water productivity (1.33 kg/m3).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 784–950 · show in text ↑
e1

“S1:15 cm, S2:17.5 cm, S3:20 cm and S4:22.5 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–587 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

APSIM grain-yield validation had RMSE 0.4, NRMSE 0.21, R2 0.83, CRM 0.04 and NSE 0.68.

Outcome
grain yielde0
Value
0.4, 0.21, 0.83, 0.04 and 0.68e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“APSIM model was calibrated and its ability to simulate crop response during validation was confirmed from the values of RMSE, NRMSE, R2, CRM and NSE as 0.4, 0.21, 0.83, 0.04 and 0.68 for grain yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 951–1150 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

APSIM biomass-yield validation had RMSE 0.79 and NRMSE 0.14.

Outcome
biomass yielde0
Value
0.79 and 0.14e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The RMSE and NRMSE were 0.79 and 0.14 for biomass yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1151–1207 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

APSIM validation reported R2 of 0.69 to 0.85 across biomass, height and LAI.

Outcome
R2e0
Value
0.69 to 0.85e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The value of R2 ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, CRM from –0.03 to 0.005, NSE from 0.69 to 0.86 for biomass yield, plant height and LAI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1208–1337 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

APSIM validation reported CRM of –0.03 to 0.005 across biomass, height and LAI.

Outcome
CRMe0
Value
–0.03 to 0.005e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The value of R2 ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, CRM from –0.03 to 0.005, NSE from 0.69 to 0.86 for biomass yield, plant height and LAI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1208–1337 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

APSIM validation reported NSE of 0.69 to 0.86 across biomass, height and LAI.

Outcome
NSEe0
Value
0.69 to 0.86e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“The value of R2 ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, CRM from –0.03 to 0.005, NSE from 0.69 to 0.86 for biomass yield, plant height and LAI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1208–1337 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Simulations found 10 cm spacing gave highest corn yield and growth parameters.

Treatment
10 cm plant spacinge0
Outcome
corn yield and growth parameterse0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“results revealed that 10 cm plant spacing produced highest corn yield and growth parameters.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1448–1540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Future climate scenarios projected grain yield reductions of 8–14 %.

Treatment
two rcps (4.5 and 8.5)e0
Outcome
graine0
Direction
reductione0
Value
8–14 %e0
Qualifier
2022–2100e0
Comparator
different data sources (GCMs)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“Further simulations (2022–2100) were performed using climatic data, acquired from different general circulation model (GCMs) for two rcps (4.5 and 8.5) and results revealed the reduction in grain and biomass yields by 8–14 % and 10–28 %, respectively against different data sources (GCMs).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1541–1830 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativeprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Future climate scenarios projected biomass yield reductions of 10–28 %.

Treatment
two rcps (4.5 and 8.5)e0
Outcome
biomass yieldse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
10–28 %e0
Qualifier
2022–2100e0
Comparator
different data sources (GCMs)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“Further simulations (2022–2100) were performed using climatic data, acquired from different general circulation model (GCMs) for two rcps (4.5 and 8.5) and results revealed the reduction in grain and biomass yields by 8–14 % and 10–28 %, respectively against different data sources (GCMs).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1541–1830 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Optimized 10 cm raised-bed planting increased grain yield 35.5 % versus ridge-furrow.

Treatment
plant spacing (10 cm) under RBPe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
moree0
Value
35.5 %e0
Comparator
ridge-furrow systeme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“Optimized plant spacing (10 cm) under RBP produced 35.5 % more grain yield and 29.3 % more biomass yield than that under control treatment (ridge-furrow system).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1831–1992 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Optimized 10 cm raised-bed planting increased biomass yield 29.3 % versus ridge-furrow.

Treatment
plant spacing (10 cm) under RBPe0
Outcome
biomass yielde0
Direction
moree0
Value
29.3 %e0
Comparator
ridge-furrow systeme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“Optimized plant spacing (10 cm) under RBP produced 35.5 % more grain yield and 29.3 % more biomass yield than that under control treatment (ridge-furrow system).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1831–1992 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend raised-bed planting in semi-arid regions for corn production under warming.

Outcome
RBP needs to be adopted in semi-arid regionse0
Setting
semi-arid regionse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–26 · show in text ↑
e0

“it is recommended that conservation technique like RBP needs to be adopted in semi-arid regions to mitigate the impact of climate change in terms of future temperature rise for better corn production.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2025–2225 · show in text ↑

density · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

658 papers: 519 positive, 139 negative or no effect

518 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

654 papers more in this group

See all 658 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.