Agric. sci. dev., Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014. pp.

222-229

TI Journals

Agriculture Science Developments

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7527
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Estimation of Soil Water Content, N-NO3 and Plant Stover N Uptake

for Urea Fertilization Management
Abolfazl Majnooni-Heris*
Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Shahrokh Zand-Parsa
Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran
*Corresponding author: majnooni1979@yahoo.com

Keywords

Abstract

Model
Water
Nitrate
Maize
MSM2
Prediction

Intensive use of chemical fertilizers in agricultural applications is a major source of pollution for surface
water, groundwater and air. Because of key role of nitrogen in plant growth, nitrogen fertilizer is considered
favorably by farmers more than other chemical fertilizers. Maize is one of grain plants which is widely
cultivated in Iran particularly in Fars province due to its importance in livestock and poultry feed and also its
industrial applications. With the rapid development of computer science in recent years, simulation models
are preferred to be utilized in order to investigate simultaneous the flux of water and nitrogen in the soil
profile for the purpose of water and fertilizer management on farms. In this study, the maize simulation
model, MSM2, was used to simulate soil water content, soil nitrate, nitrate leaching and plant stover
nitrogen uptake in maize fields. The model was validated by measured data of soil water and nitrogen
content in 12 different treatments at two experimental years. The results indicated that there was no
significant difference at 95% confidence level between measured and predicted soil water content, soil
nitrate and nitrogen uptake at different treatments. The values of model agreement index (d) and mean bias
error (MBE) showed that the efficiency of model was in acceptable range, and the model had the capability
to manage water and fertilizer usage. Therefore, its application is recommended for optimizing and
managing the application of water and N fertilizers on farms.

1.

Introduction

In the modern world, crop production with excessive and indiscriminate use of water and fertilizers is no longer considered as an acceptable
agricultural practice. Booming world population, limitation of water resources and environmental pollution concerns as well as other production
related factors, significantly impact the agricultural management.
Nitrogen is a key element in plant nutrition however overusing of N could gradually deteriorate the ozone layer conditions as well as it causes
groundwater contamination. These problems have increased the global environmental concerns. Utilization of N fertilizer in a correct way in
order to minimize the N leaching amount in different conditions is important since soil nitrate has unfavorable effects on environmental pollution
and could reduce the efficiency of N fertilizer consumption. The residual nitrate in soil is impacted by the amount of fertilizer consumed and also
soil characteristics. Teyker and Hobbs [1] demonstrated that the N source is effective on nitrate leaching, so that the residual amount of nitrate in
soil, while using the nitrate fertilizer is much more than ammonium source. Asad et al. [2] reported that utilizing urea fertilizer in different levels
in terms of quantity in 2 types of soil with high amounts of organic matter and heavy texture caused 46 to 100 percent increase in residual soil
nitrate compared with its initial amounts. Kucharik and Barye [3] reported that 30 percent increase of nitrate fertilizer consumed in maize
cultivation leads to 56 percent annual nitrate leaching, while the yield improves only1 percent. If the amount of applied N decreased about 30%,
the leaching amount of nitrate would be also decreased about 42%. Analysis performed by Khodshenas and Dadivar [4] suggested that
increasing N consumption from 100 to 300 (kg N ha-1) in maize cultivation leads to a 26% rise in residual N amount at 60 cm of soil depth. The
soil nitrate is typically deformed due to soil water conditions and it can be released to the air out of the soil in gas form and cause air pollution or
it can be absorbed to the soil water which in turn could result in contamination of the groundwater resources. Therefore, it is essential to
determine the amount of soil residual nitrate and other N deformations considering various water, weather and soil conditions by carrying out
large number of research projects. However, this is not practical since performing those investigations are costly and time consuming. Literature
review shows that many researchers have started to use modern computation machines to simulate plant growth, nitrogen and soil water balance
in order to N and water management, in recent years. This has resulted to generation of so many computer models in various complexity levels,
from very simple [5] to complex models. In complex models, such as GPFARM [6],WOFOST [7], ENVIRO-GRO [8] and APSIM [9] dynamics
of water and nitrogen in soil-plant-atmosphere system, meteorological parameters, different stages of plant growth and crop biological details
have been modeled and used to predict the growth and yield of crops.
MSM model developed by Zand-Parsa et al. [10] has the capability to simulate the maize growth and estimate the soil nitrate amount in different
depths and time steps with regards to N, water and energy balances. A variety of nitrogen transformations can be simulated using this model
including urea hydrolysis, mineralization of organic nitrogen to inorganic nitrogen, immobilization or transformation of inorganic nitrogen to
organic form, nitrification or transformation from ammonium to nitrate and denitrification or reduction of nitrate to gaseous products such as
NO, N2O and N2. Majnooni-Heris et al. [11] modified the subroutines of MSM model and introduced the effects on the values of grain N uptake
and plant stover N uptake and presented the MSM2 model. The reliability and efficiency of the model in terms of simulating maize
evapotranspiration has been evaluated and validated in Shiraz [12] and Tabriz [13]. In this paper the results of using the MSM2 model in order to
simulate the soil profile water content, plant N uptake, soil profile nitrate content, leaching nitrate and the amount of denitrification in maize
field are discussed. The model then was calibrated for different days after planting in the first year by using the measured field water content
data, the soil nitrate and plant N uptake. Also, the model was validated using the measured data during second year growing season.

223

Estimation of Soil Water Content, N-NO3 and Plant Stover N Uptake for Urea Fertilization Management
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

2.

Methodology

The MSM2 model contains one main program and several subroutines. The model subroutines are as follows: soil water flows, soil heat flow, N
movement in soil, analyzing the N transformations, the plant N uptake, estimating the plant actual evapotranspiration, analyzing the radiation
and dry matter production. The model starts the simulation process after entering the input values such as: soil hydraulic parameters, initial
amount of soil nitrate and ammonium, fertilization amount and time, irrigation time and volume, soil temperature and moisture amount in
planting date and meteorological data. The model estimates the N transformations in daily steps and then presented the plant N uptake in hourly
steps. In the next step, the urea hydrolysis and the distribution of ammonium and nitrate through the soil profile are simulated hourly during the
growing season.
For evaluation and validation of MSM2 model, maize was planted with a spacing of 0.20 m on ridge at furrow irrigation system in Bajgah
Agricultural Experiment Station. The planted cultivar was SC704, single cross and late maturity hybrid. Latitude, longitude and altitude of
station are 29 56 N, 52 02 E and 1810 m above mean sea level, respectively. The length and spacing of furrows were 14 m and 0.75 m,
respectively and there were five furrows in each plot.
Daily maximum and minimum air temperature and relative humidity, wind speed at two m heights, sunshine hours and rainfall were measured in
a weather station located at the Agricultural College, Shiraz University. Soil chemical and physical properties were measured by standard
methods before planting. Soil samples were taken at 0-0.3 m and 0.3-0.6 m depths. Residual soil water content, saturated soil hydraulic
conductivity and van Genuchten [14] (model soil hydraulic parameters of and n were estimated 0.1, 0.0000022 m s-1, 0.904 m-1 and 1.402,
respectively [11] (Majnooni-Heris et al. 2011).
Volumetric soil water content in the experimental irrigation treatments were measured by neutron meter (CPN, 503DR Campbell Pacific
Nuclear, Martinez, CA, USA) at the depths of 0.15 m up to 1.8 m in different irrigation treatments before each irrigation stage. Phosphorus in the
form of calcium phosphate was applied at a rate of 44 kg ha-1 before planting. In the experimental field, three nitrogen and four irrigation
treatments were considered. Nitrogen treatments were N3, N2, and N1 with applied N as urea equal to 300, 150, and 0 kg N ha-1, respectively.
The portion of seventy percent of urea was applied at 20 and 19 days after planting and the rest was applied at 68 and 76 days after planting in
first and second experimental years, respectively. Irrigation treatments were I4, I3, I2, and I1 with an application of 1.2, 1.0, 0.8, and 0.6
potential water requirements of maize, respectively. According to the previous investigations, full irrigation of maize was performed with an
objective of increasing the soil water content of root depth to field capacity with weekly irrigation interval. The irrigation depths of I4, I2, and I1
treatments were calculated by the multiplication of estimated irrigation depths in I3 treatments by 1.2, 0.8 and 0.6, respectively.
Nitrogen concentration of grain yield and other parts of the plant top such as leaves, stems and cobs were measured according to Bremner [15]
method. Also soil nitrate in depths of 0-0.3 and 0.3-0.6 m were measured by Bremner [16] at different times after planting.
No absolute values for goodness-of-fit parameters define whether a model is "good" or "bad". Mitchell [17], Bouman and van Laar [18] and
Shaffer at al. [6] (2004) recommended the use of graphical data analysis and deviation between simulated and measured values. In this paper,
simulated and measured data were shown in different figures and for statistical comparison of measured and predicted values, index of
agreement (d) [19] and mean bias error (MBE, the difference between simulated and measured values) computed as follows:
no

(P O )
i

d 1

i 1

(1)

no

( Pi O Oi O ) 2

MBE

1
n

(P O )
i

(2)

i 1

where, n is the total number of measurements, i is the measurement number, O and P are the measured and predicted values, respectively and O
is the average of measured values. When d =1, it indicates a prefect agreement between model predictions and the direct measurements of the
parameters in question and d=0 indicates that the measured and predicted values are not in a good agreement. Hence, MBE>0 is an indication of
over-prediction and MBE<0 is an indication of under- prediction. The value of MBE corresponding to the 95% confidence interval of the twotailed t-test with n-2 d.f. (MBE95%) is computed as [20]:
MBE 95%

1
no

no

(t

( n 2 )95 %

S .E .)

(3)

i 1

where t (n-2) 95% is two-tailed t at 95% interval with d.f. = n-2 and S.E. is the standard error of the mean.

3.

Results and Discussion

3.1 Soil water content

Soil water content was measured at different depths in different treatments prior to each irrigation stage. Values of measured and predicted soil
water content in some treatments (I3N3, I3N2, and I3N1) at different days after planting are presented in figure (1). Due to occurrence of vapor
flow in relatively dry surface soil layers, soil water content is under-predicted in depths less than 0.3 m before each irrigation process. The
predictions in greater depths are relatively well and there are not significant differences between MBE and zero at 95% significant level for all
cases shown in the mentioned Figure. The average value of d index for different treatments is 0.80 with minimum and maximum values of 0.50
and 0.96, respectively. Comparisons indicate an acceptable prediction of soil water content by the MSM2 model in different days. Results show
that the model performance in estimating the higher amounts of soil water content was better than lower values. For example, case a is related to
17 days after planting and because of weak root development during this time, the soil water content is high and agreement is better than b and c
cases.

Abolfazl Majnooni-Heris *, Shahrokh Zand-Parsa

224

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

3.2 Soil Nitrate

During the growing season of crops, the soil nitrate is either utilized by plant or transformed or leached. As a result, this process reduces the
amount of soil nitrate. The other factor that can be estimated in the model is soil nitrate content during the growing season. The amounts of
predicted and measured (average and standard deviation) soil N (N-NO3) is shown in Figures (2) and (3) for different treatments in 0-0.3 and
0.3-0.6 m depth ranges. The comparison of statistical factors indicates that the model predictability performance is acceptable in both depth
ranges. Point of worth to pay attention in these figures is the presence of toothed changes in predicted curves, especially of the ones for 0.3-0.6
m depth range. This can be due to leaching impact of the nitrate from top layer (0-0.3 m) of soil profile because of irrigation water and the nitrate
accumulation in 0.3-0.6 m layer.

Figure 1. Measured and predicted volumetric soil water content and, index of agreement (d), mean bias error (MBE) and significant (s) and no significant (ns)
differences from zero at 95% level in several treatments at (a) 17, (b) 60days after planting and (c) at harvesting time in first experimental year.

Similarly, values of d index for 0-0.3 and 0.3-0.6 m depth ranges were determined to be 0.92 and 0.89, respectively. The minimum and
maximum value of d index for 0-0.3 m depth were estimated to be0.77 and 0.98, respectively and the similarly values for 0.3-0.6 m depth were
0.76 and 0.99, respectively. The average, minimum and maximum amounts of MBE for 0-0.3 m depth were15.37, 3.71 and 31.57 and for 0.3-0.6
m depth were 9.64, 0.38 and 27.87 kgha-1, respectively. Comparison between bias error values and corresponding MBE95%values in all
treatments showed no significant difference in 95% probability level.
Table (1) represents the predicted leaching nitrate and denitrification amount by the model during growing season. According to the table, the
highest values of irrigation water led to the maximum nitrate leaching and the least nitrate leaching occurred in low amount of irrigation water
and fertilizer conditions. Denitrification had the same process of leaching. Overall, results indicate that the higher amounts of applied irrigation
water and fertilizer, the higher values of denitrification and leaching nitrate from the root zone will be predicted.

225

Estimation of Soil Water Content, N-NO3 and Plant Stover N Uptake for Urea Fertilization Management
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

Figure 2. The comparison between measured (average and standard deviation) and predicted soil N (N-NO3) amounts in 0-0.3 m depth range, index of agreement
(d), mean bias error (MBE) and significant (s) and not significant (ns) differences from zero at 95% level in different treatments in the first experimental year.

Abolfazl Majnooni-Heris *, Shahrokh Zand-Parsa

226

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

Figure 3. The comparison between measured (average and standard deviation) and predicted soil N (N-NO3) amounts in 0.3-0.6 m depth range, index of
agreement (d), mean bias error (MBE) and significant (s) and not significant (ns) differences from zero at 95% level in different treatments in the first experimental
year.

3.3 Plant N uptake

One of the required parameters for accurate nitrogen management is plant stover N uptake (kg ha-1) during the growing season, which can be
estimated by the model. Figure (4) represents the comparison between predicted and measured plant stover N uptake in different treatments. As
it can be seen, the model estimated the N uptake (NU) amounts compared to the measured data in the treatments that have received less water
(i.e. I1 and I2) and vice versa. The maximum N uptake is estimated by the mass transfer of water. The under-estimation of the model regarding
plant stover N uptake could be related to the model error in low water treatments. The average amount of d index in different treatments is 0.94
and the corresponding minimum and maximum amounts are 0.88 and 0.99, respectively, which verifies the reasonable predictability
performance of the model. Analyzing MBE and MBE95% values suggests an acceptable estimation of plant stover N uptake by the model since
there was no significant difference between observed and predicted data in 95% probability level. The least MBE amount was -1.05 obtained
from I1N2 treatment and the highest value was 36.08 for I4N3 treatment.
In sum, the evaluation of results by comparing estimated and observed data for canopy N uptake and soil N content demonstrated that the MSM2
model had an acceptable ability in managing water and fertilizer in a field. Consequently, it makes it possible to determine optimized amount of
N fertilizer and prevent the excessive N usage, which is a source of water, soil and atmosphere pollution in addition to higher costs.

227

Estimation of Soil Water Content, N-NO3 and Plant Stover N Uptake for Urea Fertilization Management
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

3.4 Model validation

The MSM2 model was run with regards to parameters such as planting date, weather, physical and chemical properties of soil, time and amounts
of fertilizations and time and amounts of irrigations during the second growing season. Then, the values of measured soil water content, seasonal
plant top N uptake and soil nitrate were compared against those values predicted by model.
The model was validated by measured and predicted soil water content data in some treatments (I3N3, I3N2, and I3N1) at different days after
planting during the second year. Results showed predictions in higher depths on the harvest day are over-predicted but the difference is not
significant between MBE and zero at 95% significant level for all investigated cases. The average value of d index was 0.92 with minimum and
maximum values of 0.79 and 0.99, respectively. This results shows that the values of soil water content at different depths in some days after
planting are predicted fairly well.
The mean error and model agreement index between measured and predicted plant stover N uptake during the second growing season and soil
nitrate for both 0-0.3 and 0.3-0.6 m depths are shown in Table 2. There is no significant difference between estimated and measured data of N
uptake similar to the first year and the model is suitable in this section as well.
The estimated and observed soil N content data had no significant difference except I1N1 treatment and as a result, the model performance for
soil nitrate estimation was confirmed.
Table 1. Predicted leaching soil N-NO3 and denitrification amounts, in different water and fertilizer treatments

Predicted at harvesting date, kg N ha-1

Treatments

Leaching

Denitrification

I1N1

8.0

10.1

I2N1

10.4

10.2

I3N1

11.3

10.7

I4N1

12.8

14.6

I1N2

11.0

8.0

I2N2

12.4

9.4

I3N2

13.5

10.5

I4N2

17.6

11.8

I1N3

12.9

8.4

I2N3

16.8

9.5

I3N3

19.3

10.4

I4N3

28.3

12.7

Table 2. Index of model agreement (d), mean bias error (MBE) and significant (s) and not significant (ns) differences from zero at 95% level for N uptake and soil
N-NO3 in 0-0.3 and 0.3-0.6 m depth range, in different treatments at the first experimental year.

MBE, kg ha-1
Treatments

N-NO3

d
N uptake

N uptake

-25.6 ns

25.40 ns

-11.0 ns

-0.56 ns

0.18 ns

-29.1 ns

I4N1

0.29 ns

I1N2

0.55 ns

I2N2
I3N2

0-0.3 m

0.3-0.6 m

I1N1

0.56 s

I2N1

0.41 ns

I3N1

N-NO3
0-0.3 m

0.3-0.6 m

0.34

0.94

0.66

0.62

0.97

0.89

-09.24 ns

0.93

0.99

0.38

-18.2 ns

21.50 ns

0.38

0.98

0.77

16.4 ns

33.30 ns

0.38

0.94

0.77

0.33 ns

10.5 ns

25.69 ns

0.76

0.99

0.96

0.22 ns

12.2 ns

27.48 ns

0.77

0.98

0.74

I4N2

0.08 ns

-4.62 ns

-02.98 ns

0.79

0.99

0.95

I1N3

0.46 ns

3.87 ns

28.01 ns

0.75

0.05

0.95

I2N3

0.36 ns

2.39 ns

26.64 ns

0.93

0.98

0.87

I3N3

-0.12 ns

8.46 ns

38.85 ns

0.76

0.99

0.94

I4N3

0.03 ns

-3.98 ns

-04.42 ns

0.95

0.99

0.81

Abolfazl Majnooni-Heris *, Shahrokh Zand-Parsa

228

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

Figure 4.. The comparison between observed (average and standard deviation) and predicted amount of plant stover N uptake in different treatments for the days
after planting in first year.

4.

Conclusion

In this study, the MSM2 model was evaluated using the ex

experimental
perimental field of maize under different water and N fertilizer treatments. Results
showed that the MSM2 model required no modifications because of the general plant N uptake process. This is due to considerin
considering mass flow,
diffusion processes on root plant N uptake and other N transformations in soil which are affected by soil physical and chemical conditions. In
addition, the observed and predicted data in the second experimental year as an independent data point had a consistent and aacceptable
adaptability.
y. These results and findings illustrate that MSM2 model has the capability to simulate soil N content and plant N uptake dur
during the
growing season and also to manage the N fertilizer in maize fields. It is recommended to use this model in managing the req
required fertilizer and
irrigation water for maize fields in order to prevent excessive usage of fertilizer and soil as well as to minimize ground wa
water contamination.

References
[1] Teyker RH, Hobbs D. 1992. Growth and root morphology of corn as influenced by nnitrogen forms. Agron J 84:694-700.
700.
[2] Asad MT, Kheradnam M, Kamgar-Haghighi
Haghighi AA, Karimian AN, Farsi Nejad K. 1999. Interaction of sugar beet with irrigation, nitrogen time and levels. JWSS
Isfahan University of Technology Iran 31: 427-439.
[3] Kucharik CJ, Barye KR. 2003. Integrated biosphere simulator (IBIS) yield and nitrate loss predictions for Wisconsin maize receiving varied amoun
amounts of
nitrogen fertilizer. JEQ 32:(1):247.
[4] Khodshenas MA, dadivar M. 2005. Investigation of nitrogen and irrigation levels effects on soil residual nitrate in maize fields. Proceedings of the 9th Soil
Science Congress; Tehran Iran p.338339.
[5] Hanks RJ. 1974. Model for predicting plant growth as influenced by evapotranspiration and soil water. Agron J 66:600
66:600-665.
[6] Shaffer MG, Bartling PNS,
NS, McMaster GS. 2004. GFARH modeling of corn yield and residual soil nitrate
nitrate-N.
N. Computer and electronics in agriculture. 43: 8787
107.
[7] van Ittersum MK, Leffelaar PA, van Keulen H, Kropff MJ, Bastiaans L, Goudriaan J. 2003. On approaches and applications of the Wageningen crop models.
Eur J of Agron 18:201-234.
[8] Pang XP, Letey J. 1998. Development and evaluation of ENVIRO
ENVIRO-GRO,
GRO, an integrated water, salinity, and nitrogen model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:14181427.
62:1418
[9] McCown RL, Hammer GL, Hargreaves JNG, Holzworth DP, Freebairn DM. 1996. APSIM: A novel software system for model development, model testing
and simulation in agricultural systems research. Agric Syst 50:2545
50:2545-271.

229

Estimation of Soil Water Content, N-NO3 and Plant Stover N Uptake for Urea Fertilization Management
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

[10] Zand-Parsa Sh, Sepaskhah AR, Rownaghi A. 2006. Development and evaluation of integrated water and nitrogen model for maize. Agric Water Manage
81:227-256.
[11] Majnooni-Heris A, Zand-Parsa Sh, Sepaskhah AS, Kamgar-Haghighi AA, Yasrebi J. 2011.Modification and validation of maize simulation model (MSM) at
different applied water and nitrogen levels under furrow irrigation. Arch of Agron and Soil Sci 57: 401-420.
[12] Majnooni-Heris A, Zand-Parsa SH, Sepaskhah AR, Kamgar-Haghighi AA. 2007. Comparison of MSM Model for Prediction of Potential Evapotranspiration
of Maize with FAO Methods JWSS Isfahan University of Technology Iran 41: 29-42.
[13] Majnooni-Heris A, Nazemi AH, Sadraddini AA, Zand-Parsa Sh, Neyshaburi MR. 2012. Evaluation of Maize Simulation Model (MSM2) by Lysimetric
Data.Water and Soil Science Tabriz University 22:56-66.
[14] van Genuchten MTH. 1980. A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892898.
[15] Bremner JM. 1965a. Total nitrogen. pp: 1149-1176. In: Black, CA(ed). Methods of soil analysis, part 2-Chemical and Microbiological properties. Agronomy
No. 9 Madison Wisconsin USA.
[16] Bremner JM. 1965b. Inorganic forms of nitrogen. PP: 1179-1237. In: Black, CA (ed). Methods of soil analysis, part 2- Chemical and Microbiological
properties. Agronomy No. 9 Madison Wisconsin USA.
[17] Mitchell P. 1997. Misuse of regression for empirical validation of models. Agric Sys 54: 313-3265.
[18] Bouman BAM, Van Laar HH. 2006. Description, evaluation of the rice growth model ORYZA 2000 under nitrogen-limited conditions. Agric Syst 87: 249
273.
[19] Willmott CJ. 1982. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull Am Meteo Soc 63: 1309-1313.
[20] Yang HS, Dobermann A, Lindquist JL, Walters DT, Arkebauer TJ, Cassman KG. 2004. Hybrid-maize a simulation model that combines two crop modeling
approaches. Field Crop Res 87:131154.