Received: 11 April 2018 Revised: 27 March 2019 Accepted: 24 April 2019

DOI: 10.1002/met.1804

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Analysis of growth functions that can increase irrigated wheat

yield under climate change

Hamed Eyni-Nargeseh1 | Reza Deihimfard2 | Sajjad Rahimi-Moghaddam2 |

Ali Mokhtassi-Bidgoli1

1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of
Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University,
Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Agroecology,
Environmental Sciences Research Institute,
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence
Ali Mokhtassi-Bidgoli, Department of
Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat
Modares University, PO Box 14115-336,
Tehran, Iran.
Email: mokhtassi@modares.ac.ir
Abstract
This study assessed the growth of wheat under climate change conditions
(increases in CO2 and temperature) in southwestern Iran. Future climate data were
projected using long-term climate data for radiation and minimum and maximum
temperatures for the baseline period 1980–2010. The future climate scenarios made
use of delta changes from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase
5 (CMIP5) in the R package of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and
Improvement Project for 2040–2070. After generating the weather data, the Agri-
cultural Production System Simulator wheat model was applied to assess the poten-
tial impact of climate change on wheat yield and the relative growth rate, crop
growth rate, total dry weight and leaf area index. Averaged across all locations, an
increase of 1.6 and 2.3
C in annual temperature was projected under representative
concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) and RCP8.5, respectively. The decrease in the
average length of the growing season was 7.5 and 9.3% under RCP4.5 and
RCP8.5, respectively, in the mid-21st century with respect to baseline. The mean
cumulative radiation will decrease by 11.6 and 14.3% averaged across all sites for
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, respectively. Grain yield will decrease at all sites for both
RCPs. The greatest decrease in wheat yield was projected for Izeh under RCP4.5
and RCP8.5 (7.9 and 9.3%, respectively) for 2040–2070 relative to baseline. A
greater grain yield at baseline than for the RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 scenarios was
closely related to higher leaf area index, relative growth rate and crop growth rate
values during the reproductive phase. Thus, these parameters can be defined as
indicators of crop yield.

KEYWORDS
AgMIP, APSIM, CO2, growth indices, rising temperature

1 | INTRODUCTION average temperature will rise by 3.7–4.8
C by the end of the

According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global
warming, which is primarily a result of the increase in green-
house gases, will continue. It is projected that the global
current century (IPCC, 2014). The global average increase
in surface temperatures in the last 50 years has been 0.18
C
per decade. The IPCC Fifth Assessment has projected that
the increase in the global mean temperature from 2018 to
2100 will probably be 1.8 ± 0.5
C for representative

Meteorol Appl. 2019;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/met © 2019 Royal Meteorological Society 1

2 EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL.
concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) and 3.7 ± 0.7
C for
RCP8.5 relative to 1986–2005 (Wang et al., 2015). The
most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which is released
into the atmosphere through human activity.
Climate changes will have different effects in different
areas, although it is expected that the negative effects will be
greater than the positive effects (Porter et al., 2014). In this
context, agriculture is vulnerable to climate change because
it is linked to weather conditions. The optimal growth and
yield of crops are possible under a range of climate vari-
ables, but climate change can change the optimal range of
temperature required for plant growth (Ranuzzi and
Srivastava, 2012). Climate change includes increases in
atmospheric CO2 and temperature and rainfall fluctuations,
which directly affect crop growth and yield (Bannayan
et al., 2011). Iran has a Mediterranean climate and long dry
summers that make it vulnerable to climate change. These
changes could have profound effects on the sustainability of
crops in arid and semi-arid areas such as Iran (Bannayan and
Eyshi Rezaei, 2014).
In the last decade, much research has been conducted on
the effects of climate change on crop production (Koocheki
et al., 2006; Deihimfard et al., 2018; Rahimi-Moghaddam
et al., 2018). Eyshi Rezaie and Bannayan (2012) studied
northeastern Iran and showed that the greatest increase and
decrease in grain yield of rainfed wheat compared to base-
line was from 2010 to 2039 (+15%) under the B2 scenario
and from 2040 to 2069 (−50%) under the A2 scenario. You
et al. (2009) revealed that a 1
C increase during the wheat
growing season would reduce wheat yields by 3–10%. Many
of these studies used crop simulation models and weather
generators (Bannayan et al., 2014; Deihimfard et al., 2018).
Simulation research using crop models enhances under-
standing about plant response to weather conditions
(Deihimfard et al., 2019) and soil and their interaction with
various scenarios of crop management (Manschadi et al.,
2010). Crop growth and development as affected by future
climate change can be estimated using crop models such as
the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer,
the World Food Studies Crop Simulation Model, Simple and
Universal Crop Growth Simulation, the Agricultural Produc-
tion System Simulator (APSIM), the Simple Simulation
Modelling Legume and WheatGrow (Lv et al., 2013;
Moradi et al., 2013; Amiri et al., 2016).
Wheat is a major crop globally and is grown on more
than 220 million ha (5.7 million ha in Iran) annually (FAO,
2016). Any environmental change will affect wheat growth
and development, which will affect wheat production and
yield (Meza et al., 2008). In the future, under climate change
conditions extreme values of climate variables, particularly
of temperature, will threaten crop production. However, it is
possible that the negative effects of extreme values of
parameters showing the positive response of plants to an
increase in CO2 will be compensated. Depending on the cul-
tivar sensitivity to temperature, the yield response of a crop
to CO2 can decrease or increase. In general, an increase in
CO2 at low temperatures will have less effect on crop pro-
duction (Bannayan, 2009).
Under climate change, new crop varieties should be
developed with physiological and agronomic traits that are
suited to future conditions (Fang et al., 2017). Growth analy-
sis is frequently used by plant physiologists and agronomists
to address this issue (Gul et al., 2013). Growth indicator
analysis interprets the response of plant species and varieties
to environmental conditions. Growth analysis is a valuable
method for study of the growth capability of plants under
different climate conditions and management (Hunt, 1991).
In order to analyse growth, leaf area and dry weight traits
are required, while other growth indicators can be calculated
(Buttery, 1969). The optimum leaf area index (LAI) is an
important factor in grain yield. If the LAI reaches an opti-
mum level within a shorter time, a higher grain yield could
result. The slow development of the leaf area could weaken
development of the canopy, decreasing radiation absorption
and the growth rate (Darzi-Naftchali et al., 2017). Nouri
et al. (2017) investigated the effects of climate change on
rainfed wheat production in western and northwestern Iran.
They concluded that crop yield and maximum LAI will
decrease chiefly because of precipitation deficits from
October through December and January through March in
2071–2100.
Growth functions to increase yield may vary in different
regions and when different general circulation models
(GCMs) and emission pathways are used. Thus, growth
analysis should be conducted for each specific region to
reduce projection uncertainty. CO2 and temperature are cur-
rently increasing globally (IPCC, 2014), including in Iran
(Bannayan et al., 2014; Deihimfard et al., 2018; Rahimi-
Moghaddam et al., 2018). These two parameters directly
affect the rate of development, growth and crop yield. The
current study aimed to determine the effect of climate
change (increase in CO2 and temperature) on irrigated wheat
yield, biomass, LAI, crop growth rate (CGR), relative
growth rate (RGR) and distance between planting and har-
vest from 2040 to 2070 relative to current climatology
(1980–2010) in southwestern Iran.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted at three locations in Khuzestan
province; Ahwaz, Izeh and Ramhormoz (Figure 1).
Khuzestan province comprises about 64,057 km2 in south-
western Iran. The study area is one of the most productive
agricultural regions in Iran, accounting for more than
EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL. 3

48 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ E 49 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ E 50 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ E
33 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N

33 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N
Elevation= 21 m Caspian Sea
32 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N

32 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N
Max T= 28.47°C
Min T= 13.93°C
Elevation= 18 m Period= 1980–2010
Max T= 33.23°C
Min T= 18.76°C Izeh
Period= 1980–2010

Ahwaz Ramhormoz
31 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N

31 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N
Elevation= 179 m
Max T= 32.79°C
Min T= 19.54°C
Period= 1980–2010
30 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N

30 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N
N
Persian Gulf
0 37.5 75 150
Kilometers
29 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N

29 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ N

48 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ E 49 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ E 50 ° 0 ′ 0 ′′ E

FIGURE 1 Selected meteorological stations for the different locations in Khuzestan province, Iran. Max T, maximum temperature; Min T,
minimum temperature

11.08% of the country’s annual irrigated wheat production.
It covers 6.89% of the total arable land (Agricultural Jihad
Ministry of Iran, 2018).
Historical weather data for daily solar radiation
(MJ m−2 day−1) and maximum and minimum temperature
(
C) for the baseline period (Figure 1) were collected for
each study location from the respective climatological sta-
tions. The geographical details of the study locations are
shown in Figure 1 and were used as inputs for the climate
model and crop growth simulation model. The Weather-
Man programme was used to modify and restore outliers
and missing data in the stations (Hoogenboom et al.,
2003). The Ångström formula was used to calculate the
daily solar radiation from the duration of sunlight
(Ångström, 1924):
Rs = ða + b × n=N ÞRa
where Rs is the daily solar radiation (MJ m−2 day−1), n is the
actual duration of sunlight (h), N is the maximum possible
duration of sunlight or daylight (h), Ra is the extraterrestrial
radiation (MJ m−2 day−1), a is a regression constant
expressing the fraction of extraterrestrial radiation reaching
the Earth on an overcast day (n = 0) and a + b is the fraction
of extraterrestrial radiation reaching the Earth on a clear day
(n = N). The values for a and b were 0.25 and 0.50, respec-
tively, in this study.
2.1 | Scenarios, period and climate model
Forecasting future agricultural yield requires attention to cli-
mate variability and conditions (Schoof and Pryor, 2001).
Projections from GCMs are commonly used as scenarios of
future climate conditions for the 21st century (Cheng et al.,
2008). To study the local impact of climate, spatial scales,
which are much smaller than those offered by the most
highly resolved GCMs, are used. In order to relate the large-
scale weather patterns to the local scale, downscaling is nec-
essary. In the present study, the relationship between these
scales was determined using the R tool in the Agricultural
Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP)
to downscale daily station-scale meteorological variables
from outputs of the large-scale GCM of Miroc5 (Watanabe
et al., 2010). Climate data at baseline were used as the basis
ð1Þ of future climate scenario analysis. The future climate sce-
narios made use of delta changes of the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) from the climate
scenario generation tools in R (Ruane et al., 2013).
There is a need to study future regional climate changes
and uncertainties using up-to-date climate models (Tian
et al., 2015). In the current study, the effect of future climate
change on wheat growth from 2040 to 2070 was analysed
relative to the current climate (1980–2010). Outputs of two
emission scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, were used. The
average temperature for RCP4.5 quickly rises to 2050 and
4 EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL.
from 2050 to 2100 the increase slows. In RCP8.5, the tem-
perature increase from 2080 to 2100 is faster than from
2035–2080. Additional details about these scenarios can be
found in Moss et al. (2010) and Wayne (2013).
2.2 | Modelling
After assessment of the weather data, the APSIM wheat
model (Keating et al., 2003) was used to simulate the growth
and development of wheat under climate change conditions
and its potential impact. The model was originally calibrated
and validated for the Chamran cultivar (a prevalent cultivar
in Khuzestan province) (Deihimfard et al., 2015; Deihimfard
et al., 2018). The APSIM model has high power to simulate
crop growth and yield. It simulates the effects of tempera-
ture, precipitation, radiation, genotype, soil properties and
management factors on crop growth and development, soil
water and nitrogen balance on a daily basis and predicts
yield. The outputs of daily climate parameters for baseline
and future scenarios after preparation were used as inputs in
the APSIM. The other inputs needed to run the model are
genetic co-efficients and management information. These
inputs included the genetic co-efficients of the Chamran cul-
tivar, plant density (350 plant/ha), row spacing (25 cm) and
planting data (November 5).
The estimation of genetic co-efficients is required in the
simulation models because they show the specifications of a
species or cultivar. There are two types of co-efficients. The
first type, species-specific genetic co-efficients, will be the
same for all cultivars and the other type, cultivar-specific
genetic co-efficients, are specific to one cultivar (Wallach
et al., 2011). Genetic co-efficients are used in crop growth
simulation models to explain the key specifications of the
cultivars. These co-efficients relate to plant genetics that are
not affected by the environment. Changes in these are lim-
ited to a specific range for the co-efficient. The yield of a
genotype under different environmental conditions is also
affected by the co-efficients in addition to climate factors
and farm management practices (Roman-Paoli et al., 2000).
The co-efficient values should be measured before their use
in field experiments or for estimation (Makowski et al.,
2006). After running the model, the outputs under future cli-
mate conditions and baseline in all locations were analysed.
2.3 | Quantitative evaluation of model
performance
Comparison of the values simulated by the model and the
observed values is an important step before using the model
for simulation studies. Different indicators are used to evalu-
ate the differences between the observed and simulated data.
In the present study, the normalized root mean square error
(nRMSE) was applied (Wallach and Goffinet, 1987). This
statistic shows the relative difference between observed and
simulated data:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X n

nRMSE = 100=O ðPi − Oi Þ2 =n ð2Þ
i=1
where Pi is the simulated data, Oi is the observed data, Ō is
the mean of the observed data and n is the number of obser-
vations. Model simulation accuracy increases as nRMSE
approaches 0.
2.4 | Growth indicators
It is assumed for calculation of growth analysis (Buttery,
1969) that changes in the plant total dry weight (TDW) and
LAI are second-degree polynomials which can be denoted as
Ln in order to reduce the dependence of variance relative to
the means:
Ln TDW = a + bt + ct2 ð3Þ
Ln LAI = a1 + b1 t + c1 t 2 ð4Þ
To calculate other growth indicators, these indices were
used as follows (Goudriaan and Van Laar, 1994):
RGR = b + 2ct ð5Þ
CGR = ðb + 2ct Þ × TDW ð6Þ
where a, a1, b, b1, c and c1 are regression co-efficients, and
t is the number of days after sowing. OriginPro 9.1 software
was used to fit the equations and draw the figures.
3 | R E S U L T S A N D DI S C U S S I O N
3.1 | Model performance
The APSIM performance was evaluated by comparing the
simulated data with the data obtained from Deihimfard et al.
(2015) for grain yield, biomass and LAI (Figure 2). For
grain yield, biomass and LAI, the model was able to repli-
cate the trend with R2 values of 0.78, 0.66 and 0.88, respec-
tively (Figure 2). The nRMSE values for grain yield,
biomass and LAI were 7.59, 5.56 and 11.45%, respectively.
This indicates that performance was acceptable for the three
traits, but less satisfactory for LAI. Model performance is
considered excellent at nRMSE values of less than 10%,
good for nRMSE values of 10 to 20%, fair for nRMSE
values of 20 to 30% and poor for nRMSE values greater than
EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL. 5

FIGURE 2 Scatter plot of simulated versus observed grain yield (yield), total above ground biomass (biomass) and maximum leaf area index
(LAI) of wheat

30% (Nouri et al., 2017). These results are similar to those
of Bannayan et al. (2014) who reported R2 values of 0.88,
0.51 and 0.94 and rRMSE values of 5.31, 4.81 and 8.10%
for grain yield, biomass and maximum LAI of wheat,
respectively, using the Cropping System Model Crop Esti-
mation through Resource and Environment Synthesis
(CSM-CERES) wheat model.
3.2 | Future changes in climate and phenology
When averaged across all locations, an increase of 1.6 and
2.3
C in annual temperature was projected under RCP4.5
and RCP8.5, respectively (Table 1). The decrease in the pro-
jected average length of the growing season (based on days
after planting) was 7.5 and 9.3% under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5,
respectively, at 2050 with respect to baseline. The mean
cumulative radiation was projected to decrease by 11.6 and
14.3%, averaged across all sites, for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5,
respectively (Table 1). Consequently, it was projected that
irrigated wheat in southwestern Iran will experience a
decrease in radiation due a decrease in the length of the
growing season. These results are supported by Deihimfard
et al. (2018), who reported that temperatures during the
growth period for winter wheat under climate change would
increase significantly compared to baseline, while the length
of the growing season and cumulative radiation would
decrease.
3.3 | Grain yield: baseline and future
The simulation results using the APSIM showed that, for the
base time period and RCP scenarios, the highest grain yield
was in Izeh and the lowest was in Ahwaz (Table 2). This
high grain yield in Izeh could relate to the temperature, the
increased length of the growing season and higher cumula-
tive radiation during the growing season (Table 1). Table 1
shows that Izeh has a lower average temperature during the
growing season than the other locations (Ahwaz and
Ramhormoz); thus, the length of the growing season was
longer and resulted in more cumulative radiation, photosyn-
thesis and grain yield. Asseng et al. (2015) reported that
higher temperatures decrease the number of days during

TABLE 1 Averaged climatic variables over the wheat growing season under climate change scenarios in the southwest of Iran

Location Scenario Temperature (
C) Days after planting (day) Radiation (MJ/m2)

Ahwaz Baseline 16.16 (±0.14)a 144.46 (±0.89) 1,997.19 (±33)
RCP4.5 17.8 (±0.16) 135.7 (±0.72) 1,818.57 (±27)
RCP8.5 18.45 (±0.17) 133.86 (±0.69) 1,783.3 (±26)
Izeh Baseline 13.25 (±0.08) 167.8 (±0.79) 2,821.58 (±78)
RCP4.5 14.85 (±0.09) 153.33 (±0.78) 2,464.74 (±66)
RCP8.5 15.37 (±0.10) 150.03 (±0.74) 2,384.32 (±63)
Ramhormoz Baseline 16.14 (±0.13) 144.53 (±0.9) 2,285.45 (±61)
RCP4.5 17.8 (±0.15) 135.76 (±0.74) 2,084.96 (±55)
RCP8.5 18.47 (±0.16) 133.96 (±0.69) 2,046.37 (±56)
a
Values in parentheses are standard errors.
6 EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL.
TABLE 2 Wheat grain yield (kg/ha) in the baseline and future climate change scenarios (2040–2070) in the southwest of Iran
Location Baseline
a
Ahwaz 5,640.7 (±146)
Izeh 8,757.7 (±329)
Ramhormoz 6,731.9 (±274)
a
Values in parentheses are standard errors.
which plants can intercept light for photosynthesis, which
will reduce biomass and grain yield.
Grain yield is projected to decrease at all sites for both
RCPs (Table 2). The greatest decrease in wheat yield was
projected for Izeh under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 (7.9 and 9.3%,
respectively) for 2040–2070 relative to baseline. This can be
attributed to differences in major climate variables of tem-
perature (+12 to +16%), cumulative radiation (−15 to
−18%) and growth duration (−9 to −12%) for 2040–2070
relative to baseline. Recent studies have shown that climate
warming in the past decades has advanced wheat phenology
and reduced wheat growth duration and yield (Nouri et al.,
2017; Tao et al., 2017).
Plants can be classified as C3, C4 or CAM according to
their carbon fixation pathways. This is a standard biological
approach to categorization of plants in terms of mechanisms
for concentrating CO2 at the site of carboxylation. In the C3
carbon fixation pathway, CO2 and ribulose bisphosphate are
converted into 3-phosphoglycerate acid. Further details on
FIGURE 3 Wheat growth indices (CGR, crop growth rate; LAI, leaf area index; RGR, relative growth rate; TDW, total dry weight) under
climate change in Ahwaz. DAE, days after emergence
RCP4.5 RCP8.5
5,527.48 (±134) 5,564.4 (±133)
8,118.69 (±305) 8,011.4 (±289)
6,686.81 (±267) 6,716.1 (±271)
this have been provided by Taiz and Zeiger (2010). Wheat is
a C3 plant; thus, an increase in CO2 concentration can
increase grain yield under appropriate temperature condi-
tions. An excessive increase in temperature, however, will
neutralize the positive effects of an increase in CO2. In the
present study, under climate change the increase in tempera-
ture is projected to decrease the grain yield. The effect of cli-
mate change on wheat strongly depends on the cultivar
characteristics and the spatial and temporal patterns of cli-
mate change (Semenov, 2009). Under climate change condi-
tions, there are interactions between an increase in
temperature and an increase in CO2 (Ludwig and Asseng,
2006). For example, in the northern part of the Western
Australian wheat belt, higher temperatures had a negative
effect on yield, while in the southern cooler part of the region
higher temperatures had a strong positive effect (Ludwig and
Asseng, 2006). Lv et al. (2013) indicated that under climate
change rainfed wheat yield in the northern regions of China
will decrease but it will increase in the southern regions.
EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL. 7

FIGURE 4 Wheat growth indices (CGR, crop growth rate; LAI, leaf area index; RGR, relative growth rate; TDW, total dry weight) under
climate change in Izeh. DAE, days after emergence

3.4 | Growth analysis under climate change
Growth analysis of crops allows integration of physiological
and morphological indices. These measurements can help to
explain yield differences under different conditions. In the
present study, growth indices were calculated at baseline and
under climate change (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios in
2040–2070). In all sites, wheat plants exhibited similar
trends of response under projected climate change conditions
(Figures 3–5). At baseline and under climate change condi-
tions, the highest TDW, LAI, RGR and CGR values were
observed in Izeh (Figure 4). All these indices showed no

FIGURE 5 Wheat growth indices (CGR, crop growth rate; LAI, leaf area index; RGR, relative growth rate; TDW, total dry weight) under
climate change in Ramhormoz. DAE, days after emergence
8 EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL.
significant differences between the RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 sce-
narios over the growing season (Figures 3–5). The indices of
LAI, RGR and CGR were higher at baseline from 100 days
after emergence (DAE) onward (approximately at the
flowering stage and during grain filling) than in the RCP8.5
and RCP4.5 scenarios (Figures 3–5). Conversely, TDW
showed a continuous increase, although at baseline the
increase was lower than for the climate change scenarios
(Figures 3–5).
As seen, the higher grain yield values at baseline than for
the RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 scenarios are closely related to the
increases in LAI, RGR and CGR during the reproductive
phase. Thus, these parameters can be defined as indicators
of crop yield. Similar results were reported by Camargo
et al. (2015) in a study on the effects of irrigation treatments
on the growth and development of potatoes (Solanum
tuberosum L.). Tao et al. (2017) reported that wheat yields
significantly and positively correlated with the length of
GP2 (from winter dormancy date to greenup date), GP4
(from greenup date to anthesis date), and GPw (growth
period from emergence date to maturity date). They indi-
cated that high temperature stress during GP4 is a challenge
that may potentially decrease yield.
C3 plants seem to benefit more in terms of dry matter
production from a higher CO2 level because of their
increased leaf expansion, photosynthesis rate per unit area,
water use efficiency and photorespiration rates (Attri and
Rathore, 2003). Low temperatures limit growth during the
winter; thus, higher temperatures can increase biomass
production.
The LAI is the most important determinant of photosyn-
thesis and dry matter accumulation. Increases or decreases in
the LAI have a direct effect on plant growth and are the most
important indicators for increasing photosynthesis and pro-
duction of assimilates (Ayisi and Poswall, 1997). Valizadeh
et al. (2013) indicated that the LAI of wheat under climate
change conditions decreased using the IPCM4 and HadCM3
climate change models and three emission scenarios (A2,
A1B and B1).
Slow CGR early in the season can be attributed to low
radiation capture by wheat due to the smaller leaf area. A
high wheat CGR up to the flowering stage is logically
related to more efficient light absorption by the crop canopy
through the expansion of its leaf area. A decrease in CGR
can be explained by leaf senescence at the post flowering
stage and the partitioning of a higher proportion of photo-
synthetic assimilates to the grains. In a study in Iran,
Koocheki et al. (2006) demonstrated that the CGR of irriga-
tion chickpea under climate change using the Goddard Insti-
tute for Space Studies model decreased 5% compared to
baseline, while the CGR of sunflowers increased 52.2%.
4 | CONCLUSION
The results of the current study show that the temperature
during the growing season under two emission scenarios
(on average) would increase 11.33% compared to baseline at
the selected locations, while the length of the growing sea-
son (7.76%) and cumulative radiation (11.44%) would
decrease. As the temperature rises under climate change
(representative concentration pathway 8.5 [RCP8.5] and
RCP4.5 scenarios), the wheat grain yield would decrease 3%
compared to baseline, largely because of the negative effects
of high temperature and reductions in the length of the grow-
ing season and cumulative radiation. In the current study,
wheat, as a C3 plant, was affected by temperature and CO2
concentration under climate change. An excessive increase
of temperature was shown to neutralize the positive effects
of increased CO2 concentration. Consequently, the wheat
grain yield declined due to the reduction in the length of the
growing season and in the cumulative radiation. The gener-
ally higher grain yield at baseline than for the RCP8.5 and
RCP4.5 scenarios was closely related to the increase in leaf
area index, relative growth rate and crop growth rate during
the reproductive phase; thus, these parameters can be
defined as indicators of crop yield.
A C KN O W L E D G E M E N T
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
OR CI D
Ali Mokhtassi-Bidgoli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3330-
1198
REF ER ENC ES
Agricultural Jihad Ministry of Iran. (2018) Agricultural statistics, Teh-
ran, Iran: Agricultural Jihad Press, Vol. 1, pp. 2017–2018. Avail-
able at: http://www.maj.ir/Portal/Home/.pdf [Accessed 30th June
2018].
Amiri, S.R., Deihimfard, R. and Soltani, A. (2016) A single supple-
mentary irrigation can boost chickpea grain yield and water use
efficiency in arid and semiarid conditions: a modeling study.
Agronomy Journal, 108(6), 2406–2416.
Ångström, A. (1924) Solar and terrestrial radiation. Quarterly Journal
of the Royal Meteorological Society, 50, 121–125.
Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Martre, P., Rotter, R.P., Lobell, D.B.,
Cammarano, D., Kimbal, B.A., Ottman, M.J., Wall, W., White, J.
W., Reynolds, M.P., Alderman, P.D., Prasad, P.V.V., Aggarwal, P.
K., Anothai, J., Basso, B., Biernath, C., Challinor, A.J., De
Sanctis, G., Doltra, J., Fereres, E., Garcia-Vila, M., Gayler, S.,
Hoogenboom, G., Hunt, L.A., Izaurralde, R.D., Jabloun, M.,
Jounes, C.D., Kersebaum, K.C., Koehler, A.-K., Muller, C., Naresh
Kumar, S., Nendel, C., Leary, C.O., Olesen, J.E., Palosuo, T.,
EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL.
Priesack, E., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Ruane, A.C., Semenov, M.A.,
Shcherbak, I., Stockle, C., Stratonovitch, P., Streck, T., Supit, I.,
Tao, F., Thorburn, P.J., Waha, K., Wang, E., Wallach, D., Woll, J.,
Zhao, Z. and Zhu, Y. (2015) Rising temperatures reduce global
wheat production. Nature Climate Change, 5, 143–147.
Attri, S.D. and Rathore, L.S. (2003) Simulation of impact of projected
climate change on wheat in India. International Journal of Clima-
tology, 23, 693–705.
Ayisi, K.K. and Poswall, M.A.L. (1997) Effect of plant population on
leaf area index, cob characteristics and grain yield of early maturing
maize cultivars. European Journal of Agronomy, 16, 151–159.
Bannayan, M. (2009) Crop models efficiency and performance under
elevated atmospheric CO2. Journal Water Soil., 23(4), 115–126 In
Persian.
Bannayan, M. and Eyshi Rezaei, E. (2014) Future production of rainfed
wheat in Iran (Khorasan province): climate change scenario analy-
sis. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19
(2), 211–227.
Bannayan, M., Lotfabadi, S., Sanjani, S., Mohammadian, A. and
Aghaalikhani, M. (2011) Effects of precipitation and temperature
on cereal yield variability in northeast of Iran. International Journal
of Biometeorology, 55, 387–401.
Bannayan, M., Mansoori, H. and Eyshi Rezaei, E. (2014) Estimating
climate change, CO2 and technology development effects on wheat
yield in northeast Iran. International Journal of Biometeorology,
58, 395–405.
Buttery, B.R. (1969) Analysis of the growth of soybeans as affected by
planting population and fertilizer. Canadian Journal of Plant Sci-
ence, 49, 675–689.
Camargo, D.C., Montoya, F., Córcoles, J.I. and Ortega, J.F. (2015)
Modeling the impacts of irrigation treatments on potato growth and
development. Agricultural Water Management, 150, 119–128.
Cheng, C.S., Li, G., Li, Q. and Auld, H. (2008) Statistical downscaling
of hourly and daily climate scenarios for various meteorological
variables in south-central Canada. Theoretical and Applied Clima-
tology, 91, 129–147.
Darzi-Naftchali, A., Ritzema, H., Karandish, F., Mokhtassi-Bidgoli, A.
and Ghasemi-Nasr, M. (2017) Alternate wetting and drying for dif-
ferent subsurface drainage systems to improve paddy yield and
water productivity in Iran. Agricultural Water Management, 193,
221–231.
Deihimfard, R., Eyni-Nargeseh, H. and Mokhtassi-Bidgoli, A. (2018)
Effect of future climate change on wheat yield and water use effi-
ciency under semi-arid conditions as predicted by APSIM-wheat
model. International Journal of Plant Production, 12(2), 115–125.
Deihimfard, R., Nassiri Mahallati, M. and Koocheki, A. (2015) Yield
gap analysis in major wheat growing areas of Khorasan province,
Iran, through crop modelling. Field Crops Research, 184, 28–38.
Deihimfard, R., Rahimi-Moghaddam, R. and Chenu, K. (2019) Risk
assessment of frost damage to sugar beet simulated under cold and
semi-arid environments. International Journal of Biometeorology,
63(4), 511–521.
Eyshi Rezaie, E. and Bannayan, M. (2012) Rainfed wheat yields under
climate change in northeastern Iran. Meteorological Applications,
19, 346–354.
Fang, Q., Zhang, X., Chen, S., Shao, L. and Sun, H. (2017) Selecting
traits to increase winter wheat yield under climate change in the
North China Plain. Field Crops Research, 207, 30–41.
9
FAO. 2016. FAOSTAT data. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/
en/#data/QC [Accessed 30th June 2018].
Goudriaan, J. and Van Laar, H.H. (1994) Modelling Potential Crop
Growth Processes. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
Gul, H., Khan, A.Z., Khalil, S.H.K.H., Rehman, H.U.R., Anwar, S.H.,
Saeed, B., Ullah, F. and Akbar, H. (2013) Crop growth analysis
and seed development profile of wheat cultivars in relation to sow-
ing dates and nitrogen fertilization. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 45
(3), 951–960.
Hoogenboom G, Jones JW, Porter CH, Wilkens PW, Boote KJ,
Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Tsuji GY. 2003. Decision Support Sys-
tem for Agrotechnology Transfer Version 4.0. Vol. 1: Overview.
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Hunt, R. (1991) Plant growth curves: The functional approach to plant
growth analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R.,
Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E.,
Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B.,
Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R. and
White, L.L. (Eds.) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribu-
tion of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and
New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, p. 1150.
Keating, B.A., Carberry, P.S., Hammer, G.L., Probert, M.E.,
Robertson, M.J., Holzworth, D., Huth, N.I., Hargreaves, J.N.G.,
Meinke, H., Hochman, Z., McLean, G., Verburg, K., Snow, V.,
Dimes, J.P., Silburn, M., Wang, E., Brown, S., Bristow, K.L.,
Asseng, S., Chapman, S., McCown, R.L., Freebairn, D.M. and
Smith, C.J. (2003) An overview of APSIM, a model designed for
farming systems simulation. European Journal of Agronomy, 18,
267–288.
Koocheki, A., Nassiri, M., Soltani, A., Sharif, H. and Ghorbani, R.
(2006) Effects of climate change on growth criteria and yield of
sunflower and chickpea crops in Iran. Climate Research, 30,
247–253.
Ludwig, F. and Asseng, S. (2006) Climate change impacts on wheat
production in a Mediterranean environment in Western Australia.
Agricultural Systems, 90, 159–179.
Lv, Z., Lio, X., Cao, W. and Zhu, Y. (2013) Climate change impacts
on regional winter wheat production in main wheat production
regions of China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 171-172,
234–248.
Makowski, D., Naud, C., Jeffroy, M.H., Barbttin, A. and Monod, H.
(2006) Global sensitivity analysis for calculating the contribution of
genetic parameters to the variance of crop model prediction. Reli-
ability Engineering and System Safety, 91, 1142–1147.
Manschadi AM, Soufizadeh S, Deihimfard R. 2010. The role and
importance of simulation modelling in improving crop production
in Iran. Key paper in the 11th Iranian Crop Science Congress. Teh-
ran: Shahid Beheshti University, pp. 234–247.
Meza, F.J., Silva, D. and Vigil, H. (2008) Climate change impacts on
irrigated maize in Mediterranean climates: evaluation of double
cropping as an emerging adaptation alternative. Agricultural Sys-
tems, 98, 21–30.
Moradi, R., Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M. and Mansoori, H.
(2013) Adaptation strategies for maize cultivation under climate
change in Iran: irrigation and planting date management. Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 265–284.
10
Moss, R.H., Edmonds, J.A., Hibbard, K.A., Manning, M.R., Rose, S.
K., van Vuuren, D.P., Carter, T.R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M.,
Kram, T., Meehl, G.A., Mitchell, J.F.B., Nakicenovic, N.,
Riahi, K., Smith, S.J., Stouffer, R.J., Thomson, A.M., Weyant, J.P.
and Wilbanks, T. (2010) The next generation of scenarios for cli-
mate change. Nature, 463, 747–756.
Nouri, M., Homaee, M., Bannayan, M. and Hoogenboom, G. (2017)
Towards shifting planting date as an adaptation practice for rainfed
wheat response to climate change. Agricultural Water Manage-
ment, 186, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.03.004.
Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M.,
Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.B. and Travasso, M.I. (2014) Food security
and food production systems. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R.,
Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E.,
Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B.,
Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R. and
White, L.L. (Eds.) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribu-
tion of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and
New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 485–533.
Rahimi-Moghaddam, S., Kambouzia, J. and Deihimfard, R. (2018)
Adaptation strategies to lessen negative impact of climate change
on grain maize under hot climatic conditions: a model-based assess-
ment. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 253-254, 1–14.
Ranuzzi, A. and Srivastava, R. (2012) Impact of climate change on
agriculture and food security. New Delhi. India: ICRIER Policy
Series 16.
Roman-Paoli, E., Welch, S.M. and Vanderlip, R.L. (2000) Comparing
genetic coefficient estimation methods using the CERES-Maize
model. Agricultural Systems, 65, 29–41.
Ruane, A., McDermid, S., Hudson, N., Rosenzweig, C., Ahuja, L.R.,
Anapalli, S.S., Anothai, J., Asseng, S., Dumont, B., Bert, F. and
Bertuzzi, P. (2013) The Coordinated Climate-Crop Modeling Pro-
ject (C3MP). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.
Schoof, J.T. and Pryor, S.C. (2001) Downscaling temperature and pre-
cipitation: a comparison of regression-based methods and artificial
neural networks. International Journal of Climatology, 21,
773–790.
Semenov, M.A. (2009) Impacts of climate change on wheat in England
and Wales. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 6, 343–350.
Taiz, L. and Zeiger, E. (2010) Plant Physiology, 5th edition. Benjamin
Cummings Publishing Company, Redwood City, CA.
EYNI-NARGESEH ET AL.
Tao, F., Xiao, D., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z. and Rötter, R.P. (2017) Wheat
yield benefited from increases in minimum temperature in the
Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China in the past three decades. Agricul-
tural and Forest Meteorology, 239, 1–14.
Tian, D., Guo, Y. and Dong, W. (2015) Future changes and uncer-
tainties in temperature and precipitation over China based on
CMIP5 models. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 32, 487–496.
Valizadeh, J., Ziaei, S.M. and Mazloumzadeh, S.M. (2013) Assessing
climate change impacts on wheat production (a case study). Journal
of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 78, 2–9.
Wallach, D., Buis, S., Lecharpentier, P., Bourges, J., Clastre, P.,
Launay, M., Bergez, J.E., Guerif, M., Soudais, J. and Justes, E.
(2011) A package of parameter estimation methods and implemen-
tation for the STICS crop-soil model. Environmental Modelling
and Software, 26, 386–394.
Wallach, D. and Goffinet, B. (1987) Mean squared error of prediction
in models for studying economic and agricultural systems. Biomet-
rics, 43, 561–576.
Wang, B., Liu, D.L., Asseng, S., Macadam, I. and Yu, Q. (2015)
Impact of climate change on wheat flowering time in eastern
Australia. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 209–210, 11–21.
Watanabe, M., Suzuki, T., O'ishi, R., Komuro, Y., Watanabe, S.,
Emori, S., Takemura, T., Chikira, M., Ogura, T., Sekiguchi, M.,
Takata, K., Yamazaki, D., Yokohata, T., Nozawa, T., Hasumi, H.,
Tatebe, H. and Kimoto, M. (2010) Improved climate simulation by
MIROC5: mean states, variability, and climate sensitivity. Journal
of Climate, 23(23), 6312–6335.
Wayne, G.P. (2013) The beginner's guide to representative concentra-
tion pathways. Skeptical Science. Available at: http://www.
skepticalscience.com/docs/RCPGuide [Accessed 31st December 2018].
You, L., Rosegrant, M.W., Wood, S. and Sun, D. (2009) Impact of
growing season temperature on wheat productivity in China. Agri-
cultural and Forest Meteorology, 149, 1009–1014.
How to cite this article: Eyni-Nargeseh H,
Deihimfard R, Rahimi-Moghaddam S, Mokhtassi-
Bidgoli A. Analysis of growth functions that can
increase irrigated wheat yield under climate change.
Meteorol Appl. 2019;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/
met.1804