1661 © IWA Publishing 2020 Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.

4 | 2020

Evaluating the climate change impact on water use

efficiency of cotton-wheat in semi-arid conditions using
DSSAT model
Muhammad Mubeen, Ashfaq Ahmad, Hafiz Mohkum Hammad,
Muhammad Awais, Hafiz Umar Farid, Mazhar Saleem,
Muhammad Sami ul Din, Asad Amin, Amjed Ali, Shah Fahad
and Wajid Nasim

ABSTRACT

Water is the most important limiting factor of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and wheat Muhammad Mubeen
Hafiz Mohkum Hammad
(Triticum aestivum L.) cropping systems in semi-arid conditions of Southern Punjab. A two-year field Mazhar Saleem
Muhammad Sami ul Din
experiment (comprising of cotton-wheat cropping) was conducted in Vehari (Southern Punjab) to Asad Amin
Wajid Nasim
calibrate and validate a DSSAT model in the climatic conditions of 1 × CO2 concentration (conc.)
Department of Environmental Sciences,
(current). The model simulation during calibration was good with errors up to 4.7, 4.4, 10.1, 6.4 and COMSATS University Islamabad,
Vehari Campus, Vehari 61100, Pakistan

5.4% for days to anthesis, days to maturity, total dry matter, yield and HI, respectively for the
Ashfaq Ahmad
cotton-wheat cropping system. During model validation, the error percentages were also under Program Chair, Climate Change, US-Pakistan
Centre for Advanced Studies in Agriculture and
reasonable limits. So, the model was run under 2 × CO2 conc. (future) conditions and it showed a Food Security,
difference of
7.3 to 19.7% anthesis days, maturity days, total dry matter, grain yield, crop ET and University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
WUEGY with respect to current CO2 concentration. Simulation by DSSAT showed that the cotton
Muhammad Awais
cultivar MNH-886 and wheat cultivar Lassani-2008 were better utilizers of limited water resources Department of Agronomy,
University College of Agriculture and
under changed climatic conditions in semi-arid conditions of Vehari, which was due to their better Environmental Science, The Islamia University of
water use efficiency. Wheat and cotton cultivars with high water use efficiency would enable crop Bahawalpur,
Bahawalpur, Pakistan
growth to maintain high crop yields under increased CO2 and its associated consequences in future.
Hafiz Umar Farid
Key words | CO2 concentration, CSM-CERES-wheat, CSM-CROPGRO-cotton, decision support system Department of Agricultural Engineering,
Bahauddin Zakariya University,
for agrotechnology transfer, water use efficiency
Multan, Pakistan

Asad Amin
Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food
Innovation (QAAFI),
The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia

Amjed Ali
University College of Agriculture,
University of Sargodha,
Sargodha, Pakistan

Shah Fahad (corresponding author)

College of Plant Science and Technology,
Huazhong Agricultural University,
Wuhan, Hubei 430070, China
and
Department of Agriculture,
University of Swabi,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
E-mail: shah_fahad80@yahoo.com

Wajid Nasim
CIHEAM-Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de
Montpellier (IAMM),
3191 route de Mende, Montpellier, France;

doi: 10.2166/wcc.2019.179

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf

by guest
 1662 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
INTRODUCTION
The cotton-wheat cropping system has prime significance
for the agriculture-based Pakistan economy. This system
not only assures food security to a large population in the
country, but is also a major source of foreign exchange earn-
ings. Cotton plays a major part in agriculture value addition
(5.5%) and GDP (1.0%); it provides vital raw material to the
textile industry, so it is indirectly a large source of foreign
exchange. Cotton is also the highest edible oil producing
crop in the country (GOP ). Owing to its contracted
range of environmental adaptability, the cotton plant is
very much influenced by the climate and various agronomic
factors, such as genotypes, sowing time, and nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers (Wajid et al. ; Amin et al. ).
Wheat is the primary food grain of Pakistan and contributes
in agriculture value addition (9.1%) and GDP (1.7%) (GOP
). A significant correlation has been found between the
atmospheric CO2 amount and drought stress for the final
wheat grain yield; raised CO2 level increased 10% yield in
well-watered plots and 20% increase in the stressed plots.
Water shortage at critical growth stages may have a great
influence on wheat grain yield compared to similar stress
during other stages; it was found that wheat cultivars also
differ in their sensitivity to water stress (Eitzinger et al.
; Mubeen et al. c; Nawaz et al. ). Because of
many factors, for example, changed length of the developing
season, wheat may be influenced absolutely or adversely in
various regions of Pakistan. Adjustments, for example chan-
ged sowing dates, more effective utilization of water and
more prominent innovative work to get maximum yield,
crop variants may counterbalance the adverse effects of
environmental change (Yu et al. ; Ahmad et al. ;
Gorst et al. ).
The anthropogenic rise in greenhouse concentrations is
causing significant anomalies in the climate at global and
regional scales (IPCC ). Global circulation model pre-
dictions have warned about the frequency and severity of
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems,
National Research Flagship,
Towoomba, QLD 4350, Australia;
and
Department of Agronomy,
University College of Agriculture and
Environmental Sciences, The Islamia University
of Bahawalpur (IUB),
Bahawalpur, Pakistan
these changes in the future (Nasim et al. a) and their
profound biological, societal, and environmental impacts
(Hautier et al. ; Hertel ; Nasim et al. b; Amin
et al. a). Atmospheric CO2 is gradually expanding and
is expected to rise from the present level of ∼384 to
∼550 μL L
1 by 2050. It is anticipated that worldwide temp-
eratures will increment by 1.5–4.5  C and additionally warm
waves and dry season spells will be increased (Benlloch-
Gonzalez et al. ). Agricultural crop production could
be significantly affected by a change in atmospheric CO2
concentration and the accompanying climate change due
to differences in photosynthesis, crop respiration, water
use efficiency (WUE), as well as soil biological and chemical
transformations of C and N (Guo et al. ; Wang et al.
; Long et al. ; He et al. ). If we examine the con-
cept of water use by the cotton plant, there is a difference
among the processes that occur at the leaf level compared
to the canopy level. At the leaf level, water use is controlled
by the available energy impinging on the leaf, vapor pressure
deficit, and aerodynamic exchange, but it is regulated
by stomatal conductance (gs). At the canopy level, the
processes involve energy exchange at the soil surface and
the plant canopy and water loss is a combination of evapor-
ation from the soil surface and transpiration from the plant
canopy. The combination of evaporation and transpiration
is referred to as evapotranspiration (ET) and in the literature
on WUE of plants, there is extensive usage of crop water use
for determining WUE (Hatfield & Dold ). A variation in
climatic conditions can change the water cycle due to a
change in precipitation, the timing and magnitude of run-
off, ET and also by any variation in the frequency and inten-
sity of floods and droughts. Global warming and climate
change are upsetting the water availability during critical
growth stages and unsatisfactory institutional and physical
infrastructure in the country is not suitable to cope with its
negative impacts (Amin et al. a).
 1663 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
Plentiful research has been conducted on the effects of
climatic variability and change on field crop production as
a function of water balance. Crop simulation models can
logically approximate and quantify the impact of particular
water stress on field crop production after calibration and
validation in field experiments (Grossman-Clarke et al.
; Sharif et al. ). Worldwide, crop models are being
extensively used by researchers and policy makers as impor-
tant decision making tools for studying the effects of climate
change and management practices including irrigation strat-
egies on crop yields. Field experiments in these research
areas are resource-intensive and challenging to implement.
Under these circumstances, calibrated and validated crop
models offer alternative solutions with comparable outcomes
(Thorp et al. ; Modala et al. ). The modular structure
of Decision Support System for Agro-technology Transfer
(DSSAT) includes weather, soil, soil–plant–atmosphere inter-
face, and management modules which drive the cropping
system model plant growth module. Detailed information
on the background and functions of DSSAT can be obtained
in previous publications (Soler et al. ; Liu et al. ; He
et al. ; Banger et al. ). The Cropping System Model
(CSM)-CROPGRO-Cotton model is part of the group of
crop simulation models which is included in the DSSAT
(Hoogenboom et al. ; Amin et al. ). This model can
simulate development, growth, and yield of cotton for diverse
soil, weather and agronomic management (Ortiz et al. ;
Amin et al. c). CROPGRO is one of the first suites that
revised weather simulation generators or presented a pack-
age to assess the model performance under climate change
(Murthy ). The CERES (Crop Environment REsource
Synthesis) model simulations have been tested under a
wide range of climate conditions (Basso et al. ): monsoo-
nal (Liu et al. ), semiarid (Mubeen et al. a),
Mediterranean (Hasegawa et al. ), oceanic and continen-
tal ( Johnen et al. ), cold winter, and humid temperate
(Otegui et al. ). CERES-Wheat showed valuable results
during evaluating drought effects in some experiments.
Jamieson et al. (), in their comparison of models AFRC-
WHEAT2, CERES-Wheat, SUCROS2, Sirius and SWHEAT
with observations from wheat grown under drought at
specific locations, found that the uncertainty in yield predic-
tion by CERES-Wheat was less than 10%. CERES-Wheat has
been successfully evaluated in numerous studies (Bannayan
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
et al. ; Boote et al. ), particularly in studies of effects
of climate change on growth (Eitzinger et al. ; Luo et al.
; Anwar et al. ; Kang et al. ; Nasim et al. ;
Basso et al. ).
The DSSAT-CSM (Cropping System Model) can suitably
study the climate change impact on the soil water needs of a
cropping system, for example a wheat-cotton cropping
system, due to the following reasons: the Land Unit and Pri-
mary modules of DSSAT-CSM link to sub-modules, and
therefore may be used to aggregate information and pro-
cesses pertinent to successive components of the cropping
system. The soil in the land unit module is described as a
one-dimensional profile; this is homogenous horizontally
and comprises of a number of vertical soil layers. The
DSSAT-CSM integrates models of all crops within one set
of code letting all crops apply identical soil model com-
ponents. This designed feature can significantly simplify
the simulation for crop rotations as soil processes function
continuously, and diverse crops are planted, managed, and
harvested according to cropping system information given
as inputs to the model. The weather module in DSSAT
can change weather variables on a daily basis for studying
climate change or simulating those experiments in which
maximum and minimum temperatures, solar radiation, day
length, rainfall, and/or atmospheric CO2 concentrations
were fixed at some constant values, and increased or
decreased with reference to their read-in values ( Jones
et al. ). One of the modes of operation in the model
simulates crops over several weather years by using the
same initial soil conditions. This mode can evaluate the
impacts of uncertain future weather on decision making if
we know all the initial soil conditions. Another mode of
the model operates the cropping system modules for simulat-
ing crop rotations over many years, and the soil conditions
are fixed only at the very beginning of the simulation
(Jones et al. ; Sharif et al. ; Banger et al. ).
Unlike many developed agricultural countries, Pakistan
is not up to the mark in terms of irrigation scheduling and
optimization of water use efficiency, although a number of
scientists are working on crop and climate simulation and
water relations in Pakistan (Khaliq et al. ; Mubeen
et al. , a, b, c; Nasim et al. ; Wajid
et al. ; Amin et al. , a, b, c). This is a
dire need for work to be carried out on climate change
 1664 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
and its impacts on the water balance and in turn on crop
productivity of cotton-wheat cropping systems using simu-
lation modeling (DSSAT) in semi-arid conditions of Vehari
in Southern Punjab (Pakistan) as this area is called the
King of Cotton in Pakistan. Wheat is also grown as a
major crop in this region.
The objectives of the experiment were to: (a) use the
DSSAT model for phenology and yield prediction of differ-
ent cotton and wheat cultivars under semi-arid conditions
of Vehari; (b) analyze simulated phenology, yield and criti-
cal water balance parameters (using the DSSAT model) of
cotton and wheat under the climatic conditions of 1 × CO2
concentration (conc.) (current), and 2 × CO2 conc. (future)
in cotton-wheat cropping systems in semi-arid regions.
METHODOLOGY
Location of experimental field and soil description
The experimental field was situated at the Research Exper-
imental Area, COMSATS University Islamabad, Vehari

Campus, located around latitude 30.08 N, longitude
72.38  E and 136 m above sea level. It is an area having
Figure 1 | Study area map.
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
low precipitation. The long-term average annual precipi-
tation in this region is 305 mm and the average annual
temperature is 28  C; these conditions show that this is a
semi-arid area. The study area map is presented in Figure 1.
The parameters of soil which were determined during
soil analysis included soil texture, bulk density (BD), and
soil chemistry (Table 1). A speedy moisture meter was
used to determine the soil moisture content of the soil for
all the experimental plots. The soil water content was also
obtained by gravimetric methods prior to planting to deter-
mine the saturation percentage and hence the field
capacity of the field. These readings were helpful for provid-
ing input data for the model SBuild file (Soler et al. ).
Field capacity was measured through gravimetric
methods on the base of saturation percentage. The calcu-
lation of moisture content at field capacity on weight basis
(θw) from this data and then its conversion to volumetric
basis (θv) using BD of the experimental soil is given in
Table 2. This conversion was necessary in order to use the
speedy moisture meter (the soil moisture meter measured
volumetric water content of soil) which measures θ on a
volumetric basis.
Soil moisture content (on a volumetric basis) of each
plot was monitored on a daily basis using a soil moisture
 1665 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020

Table 1 | Physicochemical properties of soil in experimental area Equations (2) and (3):

Soil determination Unit 0–15 cm 15–30 cm "P #0:5

n
(Pi
Oi )2
Physical analysis RMSE ¼ i¼1
(2)
n
Sand % 60 63  
P
O
Silt % 17 20 Error % ¼ 100 (3)
O
Clay % 23 17
Textural class Sandy clay loam where Pi is the predicted value and Oi is the observed value
Chemical analysis for the studied variables, n is the number of observations. If
pH – 8.3 8.5 these indices are found satisfactory, the DSSAT model
Soil EC Sm
1 1.71 1.60 could be used for simulating different irrigation regimes
Nitrogen % 0.06 0.05 for improving water use efficiency of wheat-maize cropping
Phosphorus ppm 9.0 6.7 system in semi-arid conditions (Vehari).
Potassium ppm 160 122 Crop management of the two crops and the model used
for individual crop under DSSAT is briefly described below.

Table 2 | Conversion of field capacity from weight (θw) to volumetric basis (θv)
Cotton
Depth Field capacity on Bulk Field capacity on
(cm) weight basis (θw) density volumetric basis θv ¼ θw × B.D
Crop management
0–15 28.5 1.15 32.8
15–30 26.5 1.21 32.1 Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) was sown in the kharif
season on a laser-leveled field. The experiment layout was ran-
domized complete block design (three replications each of
meter. Once the moisture content became 50% less than
MNH-886, Lalazar, and IUB-2013). A buffer plot of 1.5 m
the field capacity, irrigation water was applied to meet
between plots of any two cultivars in a replication was kept
the growing requirement. To apply any specific depth of
in order to save one treatment from seepage effects of irrigation
water (d ) for a treatment, the following formula was used
of the other treatment. The crop was sown evenly at 75 cm
(Equation (1)):
apart, by bed-furrow method; the seed rate was 25 kg ha
1.
Thinning was done after crop emergence to have a uniform
FC
MC
R¼ ×D (1) p × p distance of 30 cm. When the field capacity dropped to
100
50%, a given quantity of water was applied to maintain the
moisture level suitable for crop growing (for the purpose of
whereas R ¼ water requirement on any day; FC ¼ percent
field capacity measurement, a moisture meter was used).
moisture content at field capacity (volumetric basis);
For applying a given quantity of water, a cut throat flume
MC ¼ percent moisture content (volumetric basis) as deter-
(8 inch × 3 ft) was used. The flume calculates the water-
mined on sampling day; D ¼ depth of root zone (cm).
course discharge; this discharge was used in the formula
The three selected cultivars of cotton (MNH-886,
(Equation (4)) for time calculation of a specific water
Lalazar, IUB-2013) and wheat (Lassani-2008, Faisala-
depth (Choudhry ):
bad-2008, AAS-2011) in the semi-arid region of Vehari
were sown to obtain experimental data for model cali- t ¼ A × d=Q (4)
bration (2016–17) and validation (2017–18). Simulation
performance was evaluated by calculating the root where t ¼ time to irrigate (s); A ¼ area of the plot to
mean square error (RMSE) (Wallach & Goffinet ) be irrigated (m2); d ¼ depth of water to be applied (m);
and error percentage which were calculated using Q ¼ discharge of the cut throat flume (m3).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf

by guest
 1666 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
The precipitation was also measured to count towards
the water cycle fluctuation in the soil profile and was used
as input in the model. Crop management was carried out
with optimum fertilization (according to soil analysis) and
plant protection (weeds as well as insect pest management).
CROPGRO-Cotton
Field data obtained from the experiments of the two growing
seasons were utilized for calibration and validation of the
CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model. Soil, weather, plant related
characteristics and crop management data were obtained
from the experiment and used as input data in the model.
A number of coefficients control the growth, phenology
and seed cotton yield in the CROPGRO-Cotton model. In
order to select the most suitable set of coefficients, an itera-
tive approach was used (Wajid et al. ).
Wheat
Crop management
The wheat crop (Triticum aestivum L.) was sown during the
winter season after the cotton crop. The experiment was laid
out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD), having
three replications each of the three cultivars (Lassani-2008,
Faisalabad-2008, AAS-2011). A buffer plot of 1.5 m between
two plots in a replication was kept in order to save one treat-
ment from the seepage effect of irrigation of the other
treatment. ‘Rouni’ (soaking) irrigation was given to the exper-
imental field about 1 week before sowing in order to bring
the soil moisture to field capacity. Deep ploughing was carried
out with a chisel plough and then two cultivations and plank-
ing were completed for seedbed preparation. The sowing was
carried out with a single row hand drill. The seeding density
was 200 grains m
2. The crop was managed with optimum fer-
tilization (according to soil analysis) and plant protection. Half
of nitrogen and whole phosphorus and potash was applied at
sowing as basal dose while the remaining nitrogen was applied
at the first irrigation (Anwar et al. ; Mubeen et al. c).
When the field capacity dropped to 50%, a given quantity of
water was applied to maintain the moisture level appropriate
for crop growing (for the purpose of field capacity measure-
ment, a moisture meter was used). The summation of this
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
water applied was used to calculate water use efficiency for
each cultivar of wheat. For application of known water quan-
tity, a cut throat flume was used (as described above under
section ‘Crop management’ of ‘Cotton’).
CERES-Wheat model
The dynamic crop growth model CSM-CERES-Wheat was
used in the study as it can simulate daily crop growth, develop-
ment and yield under conditions of varied climate and soil with
diverse agronomic management practices, as discussed earlier.
Different input data are needed to prepare and run the
model simulation. The minimum data set of weather (includ-
ing daily minimum and maximum temperatures, solar
radiation, and precipitation) was obtained from the NASA
website since there is no automatic weather station in
Vehari, and management data was acquired from field exper-
iments (Amin et al. ). The genetic coefficients of CERES-
Wheat define the definite growth and development of a given
crop cultivar. These were set during calibration of the model
by an optimizing procedure (Alexandrov et al. ).
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The DSSAT model was used to evaluate the possible effects
of changing climate on yield of the two crops under
agro-ecological conditions of Vehari. The seasonal driver of
the model (using long-term weather data) was useful to deter-
mine the efficiency of cotton-wheat cropping systems under
changing climates. The DSSAT model simulates the yield in
water scarce conditions by calculating potential evaporation
(Eo) which was estimated by Priestley & Taylor ().
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Model calibration
CROPGRO-Cotton model
The first year’s data were used for model calibration. The
genetic coefficients of the three cultivars of cotton during
calibration of the model are given in Table 3.
 1667 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020

The CROPGRO-Cotton model showed good prediction

CSDL, Critical Short-Day Length under which reproductive growth progress with no day duration cause (for short day plants) (hour); PPSEN, Slope of the comparative reaction of growth to photoperiod by (positive for short-day

situation (cm2/g); WTPSD, Maximum weight per seed (g) S; SDPDV, standard seed per pod under standard growing situation (#/pod); FDUR, Seed filling interval for pod cohort at standard growth situation (photothermal days);
SDLIP

plants) (1/hour); EM-FL, Time among plant appearance and flower emergence (R1) (photothermal days); FL-SH, Time among first flower and first pod (R3) (photothermal days); SD-PM, Time among first seed (R5) and physiological

speed at 30  C, 350 vpm CO2; SIZLF, Maximum size of full leaf (three leaflets) (cm2); XFRT, Maximum division of daily development that is partitioned to seed þ shell; SLAVR, precise leaf area of cultivar under average growth

THRSH, Threshing percentage. The maximum ratio of (seed/(seed þ shell)) at maturity. Causes seeds to stop growing as their dry weight increases until the shells are filled in a cohort; PODUR, Time required for cultivar to reach
maturity (R7) (photothermal days); FL-SD, Time among first flower and first seed (R5) (photothermal days); FL-LF, Time among first flower (R1) and end of leaf extension (photothermal days); LFMAX, greatest leaf photosynthesis
0.12
0.12
0.11
in simulating crop phenology (days for anthesis and matur-
ity) and crop yield (total dry matter, seed cotton yield,
SDPRO

0.11
0.11
0.12
harvest index) for the experimental site by estimation of cul-
tivar coefficients. Model simulations indicated that the crop
THRSH

75.1
94.4
94.4

reached the anthesis stage 67–70 days after sowing in the

three cultivars and the observed days range of 64–70 days
PODUR

showed that the model was suitable and operated well in

2.8
2.8
2.8

the environmental conditions of Vehari. Error values

showed that model simulations were good under the given
SDPDV

set of cultivar coefficients. The days to maturity observed

26
26
26

were 155–164 days in the three cultivars; whereas the days

SFDUR

to maturity simulated by the model for MNH-886, Lalazar

33
33
33

final pod load under optimal conditions (photo thermal days); SDPRO, Fraction protein in seeds (g(protein)/g(seed)); SDLIP, Fraction oil in seeds (g(oil)/g(seed).

and IUB-2013 were in the range of 160–167 (having an

WTPSD

error percentage of 0.6–4.4%) (Table 4).

0.17
0.17
0.17

While discussing total dry matter during model cali-

bration, it was found that the model showed a percentage
XFRT

1.24
1.47
1.47

error of 9.5–10.1% due to the observed values of 6,760–7,595

kg ha
1 and simulated values of 7,399–8,360 kg ha
1. Simi-
SIZLF

171
105
181

larly, the model simulation error for seed cotton yield was
4.1–5.3% because the observed vs simulated values were in
SLAVR

176
166
171

the range of 1,761–1,935 and 1,854–2,015 kg ha
1, respect-

ively. However, in the case of the harvest index, some
LFMAX

underestimation was noted during model simulation and an

1.6
1.4
1.5

error percentage of
3.8 to
5.4 was obtained (Table 4).

FL-LF

74.9
74.9
74.9

CERES-Wheat model
FL-SD

60
55
55

The model was calibrated with the first year’s data (anthesis
Genetic coefficients of cotton cultivars during model calibration

days, total dry matter, maturity days and maturity yield). The
FL-SD

17.1
15.4
16.3

genetic coefficients of the three cultivars of wheat during the

model calibration are provided in Table 5.
FL-SH

12.4
12.5
12.7

The CERES-Wheat model presented good results in

simulating crop phenology and crop yield parameters for
EM-FL

48.6
45.4
38.8

the experimental site. Model simulations showed that the

crop reached the anthesis stage 104 days after sowing in
PPSEN

0.01
0.01
0.01

the three cultivars and the observed days were in the

range of 100–103 days which showed that the model was
CSDL

suitable and worked well in Vehari conditions with an

22
22
22

error of 2–5%. Satisfactory results were found in the case

MNH-886

IUB-2013

of days to maturity; the observed values were 138–140

Lalazar
VRNAME

days in the three cultivars; whereas days simulated by the

|
Table 3

model for Lassani-2008, Faisalabad-2008 and AAS-2011

were 144 (having an error percentage of 3–4.4%) (Table 6).
1
2
3

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf

by guest
 1668 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020

Table 4 | Summary of observed and simulated results of cotton cultivars and their % error in model calibration

Variable Unit Cultivars Observed Simulated %Error RMSE

Anthesis Day MNH-886 67 68 0.7 1

Lalazar 64 67 4.7 3
IUB-2013 70 70 0.0 0
Maturity Day MNH-886 164 165 0.6 1
Lalazar 155 160 3.2 5
IUB-2013 160 167 4.4 7
Total dry matter kg ha
1 MNH-886 7,595 8,360 10.1 765
Lalazar 6,760 7,399 9.5 639
IUB-2013 7,063 7,733 9.5 670
Seed cotton yield kg ha
1 MNH-886 1,935 2,015 4.1 80
Lalazar 1,761 1,854 5.3 93
IUB-2013 1,829 1,914 4.7 86
HI % MNH-886 25 24
5.4
1
Lalazar 26 25
3.8
1
IUB-2013 26 25
4.4
1

Table 5 | Genetic coefficients of wheat cultivars during model calibration As regards total dry matter during model calibration,
it was found that the model showed a percentage
VRNAME P1 V P1D P5 G1 G2 G3 PHINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 error of 1.4–6.2% due to the observed values of
Lassani-2008 30 81 303 19 39 7.2 114 9,903–10,365 kg ha
1 and simulated values of 10,509–
Fasilabad-2008 30 83 305 20 39 8.2 112 10,521 kg ha
1. Similarly, the model simulation error
AAS-2011 29 82 304 20 38 7.2 112 for grain yield was 2.6–6.4% because the observed vs
simulated values were in the range of 4,827–5,118
P1 V, Days, optimum vernalizing temperature, required for vernalization; P1D, Photoperiod
response (% reduction in rate/10 h drop in pp); P5, Grain filling (excluding lag) phase and 4,955–5,289 kg ha
1, respectively. In the case of har-
duration ( C.d); G1, Kernel number per unit canopy weight at anthesis (#/g); G2, Standard
vest index, an error percentage of 0–1 was obtained
kernel size under optimum conditions (mg); G3, Standard, non-stressed mature tiller wt
(including grain) (g dwt). (Table 6).

Table 6 | Summary of observed and simulated results of wheat cultivars and their % error during model calibration

Variable Unit Cultivars Observed Simulated %error RMSE

Anthesis Day Lassani-2008 103 104 1.5 2

Faisalabad-2008 102 104 2.5 3
AAS-2011 100 104 4.5 5
Maturity Day Lassani-2008 140 144 3.0 4
Faisalabad-2008 138 144 4.4 6
AAS-2011 140 144 3.0 4
Total dry matter kg ha
1 Lassani-2008 10,191 10,509 3.1 318
Faisalabad-2008 9,903 10,521 6.2 618
AAS-2011 10,365 10,513 1.4 148
Maturity yield kg ha
1 Lassani-2008 5,118 5,289 3.3 171
Faisalabad-2008 4,885 5,197 6.4 312
AAS-2011 4,827 4,955 2.6 128
HI % Lassani-2008 56 56 0.0 0
Faisalabad-2008 49 49 0.1 0
AAS-2011 47 47 1.2 1

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf

by guest
 1669 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020

Model evaluation
CROPGRO-Cotton model
Evaluation of the model was carried out with the second
year of data. During evaluation it was found that the
anthesis observed days were 67–72 but the simulated
values were 70–72 days showing an error percentage of
0–5.1%. After anthesis, the role of maturity days is important
in cotton. We observed 160–171 days compared to the simu-
lated values of 165–172 in the three cultivars (Table 7).
Observed total dry matter of MNH-886, Lalazar and
IUB-2013 was 7,747, 7,098 and 7,346 kg ha
1 as against

1
the simulated values of 8,652, 7,795 and 8,098 kg ha ,
respectively, giving an error range of 9.8–11.7%. Observed
values of seed cotton yield of the three cultivars were
1,993, 1,796 and 1,920 kg ha
1 compared to the simulated
values of 2,085, 1,906 and 2,014 kg ha
1 respectively. The
observed value of the harvest index for the three cultivars
was 25–26% versus simulated values of 24–25% giving an
error percentage of
3.4 to
6.3% (Table 7).
CERES-Wheat model
The CERES-Wheat model evaluation was carried out with
the second year of data. During evaluation it was found
that the anthesis observed days were 104–109 but the
simulated values were 108–111 days showing an error per-
centage of 1.6–4.3%. In the case of days to maturity, we
observed 144–147 days compared to the simulated values
of 149–152 in the three cultivars (Table 8).
The observed total dry matter of Lassani-2008,
Faisalabad-2008 and AAS-2011 was 10,497, 10,497 and
10,884 kg ha
1 compared to the simulated values of
10,964, 11,172 and 11,048 kg ha
1, respectively, giving an
error range of 1.5–6.4%. The observed values of seed
cotton yield of the three cultivars were 5,323, 5,032 and
5,117 kg ha
1 compared to the simulated values of 5,517,
5,391 and 5,256 kg ha
1 respectively. The observed value
of the harvest index for the three cultivars was 47–57
versus simulated values of 48–57% giving an error percen-
tage of 0–1% (Table 8).
Relationship of simulated and observed total dry matter
and maturity yield
Cotton
Simulated total dry matter production was strongly positive
and linearly related with the observed total dry matter pro-
duction in cotton and the regression accounted for 89.11%
when the data of calibration and evaluation were pooled
(Figure 2(a)). Similarly, the relationship of simulated seed
cotton yield and observed seed cotton yield for the pooled

Table 7 | Summary of observed and simulated results of cotton cultivars and their % error during model evaluation

Variable Unit Cultivars Observed Simulated %Error RMSE

Anthesis Day MNH-886 70 71 0.8 1

Lalazar 67 70 5.1 3
IUB-2013 72 72 0.0 0
Maturity Day MNH-886 171 172 0.7 1
Lalazar 160 165 3.6 6
IUB-2013 163 171 5.1 8
Total dry matter kg ha
1 MNH-886 7,747 8,652 11.7 905
Lalazar 7,098 7,795 9.8 698
IUB-2013 7,346 8,098 10.2 752
Seed cotton yield kg ha
1 MNH-886 1,993 2,085 4.6 92
Lalazar 1,796 1,906 6.1 110
IUB-2013 1,920 2,014 4.9 94
HI % MNH-886 26 24
6.3
2
Lalazar 25 24
3.4
1
IUB-2013 26 25
4.9
1

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf

by guest
 1670 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020

Table 8 | Summary of observed and simulated results of wheat cultivars and their % error during model evaluation

Variable Unit Cultivars Observed Simulated %error RMSE

Anthesis Day Lassani-2008 109 111 1.6 2

Faisalabad-2008 107 110 2.5 3
AAS-2011 104 108 4.3 4
Maturity Day Lassani-2008 147 152 3.1 5
Faisalabad-2008 144 151 4.8 7
AAS-2011 144 149 3.3 5
Total dry matter kg ha
1 Lassani-2008 10,497 10,864 3.5 367
Faisalabad-2008 10,497 11,172 6.4 675
AAS-2011 10,884 11,048 1.5 164
Maturity yield kg ha
1 Lassani-2008 5,323 5,517 3.6 194
Faisalabad-2008 5,032 5,391 7.1 359
AAS-2011 5,117 5,256 2.7 139
HI % Lassani-2009 57 57 0.0 0
Faisalabad-2009 48 48 0.7 0
AAS-2012 47 48 1.2 1

Wheat

In the case of wheat, simulated total dry matter production

was strongly positive and linearly related with observed total
dry matter production and the regression accounted for
77.56% when the data of calibration and evaluation were
pooled (Figure 3(a)). Similarly, the relationship of simulated
grain yield and observed grain yield was also linear and
strongly positive giving an R2 value of 85.77% for the
pooled data of two years (Figure 3(b)). So, like the CSM-
CROPGRO-Cotton model, these relationships also show
that the simulation of the CSM-CERES-Wheat model was
good in the growing conditions of Vehari. So, DSSAT may
be used for the simulation of yield of cotton-wheat cropping
patterns in the changed climate scenarios under semi-arid
environments in Southern Punjab.

Climate change impacts on cotton-wheat cropping

pattern

Figure 2 | Relationship between simulated and observed (a) total dry matter and (b) grain The impacts of climate change on phenology, yield, crop ET
yield in cotton.
and water use efficiency of cotton-wheat cropping pattern
were assessed with the use of CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton and
data of two years was also linear and strongly positive giving CSM-CERES-Wheat models run with weather series pre-
an R2 value of 94.99% (Figure 2(b)). These relationships senting both the present and changed climates. In order
show that the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model worked well that the findings obtained by a comparison of model yields
in the growing conditions of Vehari. for different climates are reliable and more realistic, multi

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf

by guest
 1671 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
Figure 3 | Relationship between simulated and observed (a) total dry matter and (b) grain
yield in wheat.
annual crop model simulations were run for each scenario.
The crop simulations were run with observed pedological,
physiological and cultivation data specific for each individ-
ual year and site. Observed weather series for the first year
were used in present climate simulations. The weather
series for simulations in the future changed climate were
obtained by a direct modification in 30 years observed
weather series.
Table 9 shows the model simulations which elaborate
the impact of change in CO2 concentration, i.e. from
410 ppm (current CO2 conc. or 1 × CO2) to 2 × CO2 on
phenology, maturity yield and total dry matter of cotton
and wheat under the experimental site of Vehari. It is
clear from Table 9 that the cotton cultivar IUB-2013
showed greater decrease in days to anthesis (
7.3%). On
average the three cotton cultivars showed a decrease of

6.2% (i.e. from 68 days of anthesis to 64 days of anthesis).
Similarly, the wheat cultivar Faisalabad-2008 showed a
greater decrease in days to anthesis as compared to other
cultivars. Overall, wheat cultivars took 98 days under the
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
changed scenario of CO2. Regarding days to maturity,
a similar trend was observed and an increase in CO2
concentrations reduced the duration of both the crops. In
the case of cotton, IUB-2013 matured earlier than the
other two cotton cultivars. The three cultivars of cotton,
on average, showed a decrease of
5.7% (matured 154
days after sowing). Wheat cultivars showed an almost simi-
lar decreasing trend and an average
7.5% decrease was
observed in days to maturity, i.e. in 2 × CO2 conc. the
wheat crop matured in 133 days.
It is shown in Table 9 that an increase in total dry matter
production was observed due to increased CO2 conc. under
the cotton-wheat cropping system of Vehari. In the case of
cotton, on average 7.1% increase was noted (from 7,831 to
8,382 kg ha
1) and among the three cultivars, a maximum
increase was found in IUB-2013 (8.1%). In the case of
wheat, the highest increase in total dry matter production
was seen in AAS-2011 and the average increase in total
dry matter in wheat was found to be 7.2% (from 10,514
kg ha
1 under the current CO2 conc. to 11,268 kg ha
1
under 2 × CO2 conc.). Similarly, as regards, maturity yield,
we see that an overall increase of 7.3% (from 1,928 to 2,069
kg ha
1) was found in seed cotton yield and increase of 8%
(from 5,147 to 5,556 kg ha
1) was observed in the grain
yield of wheat under a changed CO2 scenario. The maxi-
mum increase of 8.6% was found in cotton cultivar
IUB-2013, however, MNH-886 was still higher yielding as
compared to other cotton cultivars with a seed cotton
yield of 2,162 kg ha
1. In the case of wheat, a maximum
increase of 9.2% was found in wheat cultivar AAS-2011,
however, Lassani-2008 was still higher yielding as compared
to other wheat cultivars with a grain yield of 5,707 kg ha
1.
It is also clear from Table 9 that increasing the CO2 con-
centration had some decreasing effects on seasonal crop ET,
i.e. crop water requirement. The decrease (average over culti-
vars) was
3.4% (from 521 to 504 mm) in cotton and
5.3%
(from 411 to 389 mm) in wheat. In cotton, the maximum
decrease was observed in MNH-886, i.e. up to
4.1%. In
the case of wheat, there was not much difference among
different cultivars regarding seasonal crop ET. Regarding
water use efficiency (WUE) of the two crops, it was signifi-
cantly increased in both cotton (on average from 0.35 to
0.41 g m
2 mm
1) and wheat (on average from 1.25 to 1.43
g m
2 mm
1). The maximum increase in WUE was observed
 1672 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020

Table 9 | Impact of CO2 concentrations on phenology and yield of cotton cultivars grown in Vehari conditions simulated through DSSAT

Cotton 1× 2× Dif. w.r.t. Dif. w.r.t.

Variable cultivars CO2 CO2 current CO2 (%) Wheat cultivars 1 × CO2 2 × CO2 current CO2 (%)

Anthesis (days) MNH-886 68 64
5.1 Anthesis (days) Lassani-2008 104 99
5.3

Lalazar 67 63
6.2 Faisalabad-2008 104 98
6.4
IUB-2013 70 65
7.3 AAS-2011 104 98
6.1
Average 68 64
6.2 Average 104 98
5.9
Maturity (days) MNH-886 165 155
5.9 Maturity (days) Lassani-2008 144 133
7.5
Lalazar 160 152
5 Faisalabad-2008 144 134
7.4
IUB-2013 167 156
6.3 AAS-2011 144 133
7.7
Average 164 154
5.7 Average 144 133
7.5
Total dry matter MNH-886 8,360 8,878 6.2 Total dry matter Lassani-2008 10,509 11,276 7.3
(kg ha
1) Lalazar 7,399 7,909 6.9 (kg ha
1) Faisalabad-2008 10,521 11,205 6.5
IUB-2013 7,733 8,359 8.1 AAS-2011 10,513 11,323 7.7
Average 7,831 8,382 7.1 Average 10,514 11,268 7.2
Seed cotton yield MNH-886 2,015 2,162 7.3 Grain yield Lassani-2008 5,289 5,707 7.9
(kg ha
1) Lalazar 1,854 1,967 6.1 (kg ha
1) Faisalabad-2008 5,197 5,550 6.8
IUB-2013 1,914 2,079 8.6 AAS-2011 4,955 5,411 9.2
Average 1,928 2,069 7.3 Average 5,147 5,556 8.0
Crop ET MNH-886 526 505
4.1 Crop ET Lassani-2008 415 391
5.7
Lalazar 516 503
2.6 Faisalabad-2008 407 386
5.1
IUB-2013 521 503
3.4 AAS-2011 411 389
5.2
Average 521 504
3.4 Average 411 389
5.3
WUESY MNH-886 0.37 0.43 16.2 WUEGY Lassani-2008 1.23 1.46 18.6
Lalazar 0.34 0.39 14.6 Faisalabad-2008 1.2 1.44 19.7
IUB-2013 0.35 0.41 17.6 AAS-2011 1.18 1.39 18.2
Average 0.35 0.41 16.1 1.25 1.43 14.6

in cotton cultivar IUB-2013, i.e. an increase of 17.6%; how-
ever, the WUE of MNH-886 was still highest among the
cultivars, i.e. 0.43 g m
2 mm
1 under changed CO2 concen-
tration. In the case of wheat, the maximum increase in
WUE was given by Faisalabad-2008; however, the maximum
WUE was observed in Lassani-2008, i.e. 1.46 g m
2 mm
1.
Similar results were reported by Bunce () who showed
that higher ambient CO2 will allow a reduction of the tran-
spiration rate through decreased stomatal conductance,
especially at higher temperature. This would lead to
improved water use efficiency (WUE) and thereby to a
lower probability of water stress occurrence (Kimbal ).
Trnka et al. () also reported that increased CO2 contrib-
uted to the intensified photosynthesis and improved WUE.
The concept of WUE, among other parameters, had
been suggested in plant breeding to identify water use effi-
cient genotypes under changing climate regimes, heat and
water deficit stress, and interactions among them. Variation
among genotypes for WUE has been found in a number of
crop species, including barley (Hubick & Farquhar ),
soybean (Hufstetler et al. ), upland cotton and pima
cotton (G. barbadense L.) (Quisenberry & McMichael
; Saranga et al. ; Fish & Earl ), and wheat
(Ehdaie & Waines ; Van Den Boogaard et al. ;
Siahpoosh et al. ). In our study, it was also found that
various genotypes of wheat and cotton had shown appreci-
able differences of productivity in the scenario of changed
climate and utmost attention should be given by the bree-
ders to develop such genotypes which are water efficient
to combat high temperature and scarce water conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
Water use efficiency (WUE) is the criterion by which we can
assess which cultivar of cotton and wheat in cotton-wheat
cropping systems of Vehari will be better under changed
CO2 scenarios. The changed CO2 scenario will be an era of

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf

by guest
 1673 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
changed water balance and any cultivar which produces
maximum yield under this changed water balance would be
definitely needed in future. Climate change impacts on
cotton and wheat phenology and yields, and crop ET and
WUE, were determined using the DSSAT model in semi-
arid conditions. After the successful calibration and evalu-
ation of DSSAT, when it was run with changed CO2 conc.,
i.e. 2 × CO2 conc., the cotton cultivar MNH-886 was found
to be the better utilizer of limited water resources in semi-
arid conditions of Vehari and produced a higher yield per
unit of water consumed. Similarly, Lassani-2008 was the
better one among all the wheat cultivars in terms of WUE.
Although much research has been conducted on sowing
date adjustments for mitigating the adverse effects of climate
change, future studies are needed to develop such cultivars of
cotton and wheat which are water efficient in order to cope
with the changing hydrological balance. The farming commu-
nity and decision makers would benefit from this assessment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to COMSATS University Islamabad,
Pakistan for their financial support for the study work
through grant No. 16-60/CRGP/CIIT/VEH/15/742.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, A., Ashfaq, M., Rasul, G., Wajid, S. A., Khaliq, T., Rasul,
F., Saeed, U., Rahman, M. H. u. & Hussain, J.  Impact of
climate change on the rice–wheat cropping system of
Pakistan. In: Handbook of Climate Change and
Agroecosystems: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison
and Improvement Project Integrated Crop and Economic
Assessments, Part 2. World Scientific Publishing Centre,
Singapore, pp. 219–258.
Alexandrov, V., Eitzinger, J., Cajic, V. & Oberforster, M. 
Potential impact of climate change on selected agricultural
crops in northeastern Austria. Glob. Chang. Biol. 8 (4),
372–389.
Amin, A., Nasim, W., Mubeen, M., Nadeem, M., Ali, L., Hammad,
H. M., Sultana, S. R., Jabran, K., urRehman, M. H., Ahmad,
S., Awais, M., Rasool, A., Fahad, S., Saud, S., Shah, A. N.,
Ihsan, Z., Ali, S., Bajwa, A. A., Hakeem, K. R., Ameen, A.,
Amanullah, Rehman, H. U., Alghabar, F., Jatoi, G. H.,
Akram, M., Khan, A., Islam, F., Ata-Ul-Karim, S. T., Rehmani,
M. I. A., Hussain, S., Razaq, M. & Fathi, A.  Optimizing
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
the phosphorus use in cotton by using CSM-CROPGRO-
Cotton model for semi-arid climate of Vehari-Punjab.
Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 5811–5823.
Amin, A., Nasim, W., Mubeen, M., Sarwar, S., Urich, P., Ahmad, A.,
Wajid, A., Khaliq, T., Rasul, F., Hammad, H. M., Rehmani,
M. I. A., Mubarak, H., Mirza, N., Wahid, A., Ahamd, S., Fahad,
S., Ullah, A., Khan, M. N., Ameen, A., Amanullah Shahzad, B.,
Saud, S., Alharby, H., Ata-Ul-Karim, S. T., Adnan, M., Islam, F.
& Ali, Q. S. a Regional climate assessment of precipitation
and temperature in Southern Punjab (Pakistan) using
SimCLIM climate model for different temporal scales. Theor.
Appl. Climatol. 131 (1–2), 121–131.
Amin, A., Nasim, W., Ali, S., Ahmad, S., Fahad, S., Rasool, A.,
Saleem, N., Hammad, H. M., Sultana, S. R., Mubeen, M.,
Bakhat, H. F., Ahmad, N., Shah, G. M. & Paz, J. O. b
Evaluation and analysis of temperature for historical (1996–
2015) and projected (2030–2060) climates in Pakistan using
SimCLIM climate model: ensemble application. Atmos. Res.
213, 422–436.
Amin, A., Nasim, W., Mubeen, M., Ahmad, A., Nadeem, M.,
Urich, P., Fahad, S., Ahmad, S., Wajid, A., Tabassum, F.,
Hammad, H. M., Sultana, S. R., Anwar, S., Baloch, S. K.,
Wahid, A., Wilkerson, C. J. & Hoogenboom, G. c
Simulated CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton yield under projected
future climate by SimCLIM for southern Punjab, Pakistan.
Agric, Syst. 167, 213–222.
Anwar, M. R., O’Leary, G. & McNeil, D.  Climate change
impact on rainfed wheat in south-eastern Australia. Field
Crops Res. 104, 139–147.
Anwar, J., Ahmad, A., Khaliq, T., Mubeen, M. & Sultana, S. R. 
Optimization of sowing time for promising wheat genotypes in
semiarid environment of Faisalabad. Crop Environ. 2 (1), 24–27.
Banger, K., Nafziger, E. D., Wang, J., Muhammad, U. & Pittelkow,
C. M.  Simulating nitrogen management impacts on
maize production in the U.S. Midwest. PLoS One 13 (10),
e0201825.
Bannayan, M., Crout, N. M. J. & Hoogenboom, G. 
Application of the CERES-Wheat model for within-season
prediction of winter wheat yield in the United Kingdom.
Agron. J. 95, 114–125.
Basso, B., Liu, L. & Ritchie, J. T.  A comprehensive review of
the CERES-Wheat, -Maize and -Rice models’ performances.
In: Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 136. Elsevier Inc,
Cambridge, USA.
Benlloch-Gonzalez, M., Bochicchio, R., Berger, J., Bramley, H. &
Palta, J. A.  High temperature reduces the positive effect
of elevated CO2 on wheat root system growth. Field Crop
Res. 165, 71–79.
Boote, K. J., Sau, F., Hoogenboom, G. & Jones, J. W. 
Experience with water balance, evapotranspiration, and
predictions of water stress effects in the CROPGRO model.
In: Response of Crops to Limited Water: Understanding and
Modeling Water Stress Effects on Plant Growth Processes.
Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling Series 1. ASA,
CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 59–103.
 1674 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
Bunce, J. A.  Carbon dioxide effects on stomatal responses to
the environment and water use by crops under field
conditions. Oecologia 140 (1), 1–10.
Choudhry, M. R.  Irrigation and Drainage Practices for
Agriculture, 8th edn. Study Aid Foundation for Excellence,
Univ. Agric., Faisalabad.
Ehdaie, B. & Waines, J. G.  Variation in water-use efficiency
and its components in wheat: I. Well-watered pot
experiment. Crop Sci. 33, 294–299.
Eitzinger, J., Stastna, M. & Zalud, Z.  A simulation study of
the effect of soil water balance and water stress on winter
wheat production under different climate change scenarios.
Agric. Water Manage. 61, 195–217.
Fish, D. A. & Earl, H. J.  Water-use efficiency is negatively
correlated with leaf epidermal conductance in cotton
(Gossypium spp.). Crop Sci. 49, 1409–1415.
GOP (Government of Pakistan).  Economic Survey of
Pakistan, 2017–18. Finance Division Economic Advisory
Wing. Islamabad, Pakistan.
Gorst, A., Groom, B. & Dehlavi, A.  Crop Productivity and
Adaptation to Climate Change in Pakistan. Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Working paper. Centre for Climate Change Economics and
Policy, University of Leeds, UK.
Grossman-Clarke, S., Pinter, E. J., Kartschall, T., Kimball, B. A.,
Hunsaker, D. J., Wall, G. W., Garcia, R. L. & LaMorte, R. L.
 Modelling a spring wheat crop under elevated CO2 and
drought. New Phytol. 150, 315–335.
Guo, R., Lin, Z., Mo, X. & Yang, C.  Responses of crop yield
and water use efficiency to climate change in the North
China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 97, 1185–1194.
Hasegawa, H., Bryant, D. C. & Denison, R. F.  Testing CERES
model predictions of crop growth and n dynamics, in
cropping systems with leguminous green manures in a
Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Res. 67, 239–255.
Hatfield, J. L. & Dold, C.  Water-use efficiency: advances and
challenges in a changing climate. Front. Plant Sci. 10, Article
103, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00103.
Hautier, Y., Tilman, D., Isbell, F., Seabloom, E. W., Borer, E. T. &
Reich, P. B.  Anthropogenic environmental changes affect
ecosystem stability via biodiversity. Science 348, 336–340.
He, J., Dukes, M. D., Hochmuth, G. J., Jones, J. W. & Graham, W. D.
 Identifying irrigation and nitrogen best management
practices for sweet corn production on sandy soils using
CERES-Maize model. Agric. Water Manage. 109, 61–70.
He, W., Yang, J. Y., Qian, B., Drury, C. F., Hoogenboom, G., He, P.,
Lapen, D. & Zhou, W.  Climate change impacts on crop
yield, soil water balance and nitrate leaching in the semiarid
and humid regions of Canada. PLoS One 13 (11), e0207370.
Hertel, T. W.  Food security under climate change. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 6, 10–13.
Hoogenboom, G., Jones, J. W., Wilkens, P. W., Porter, C. H.,
Batchelor, W. D., Hunt, L. A., Boote, K. J., Singh, U.,
Uryasev, O., Bowen, W. T., Gijsman, A. J., Du Toit, A. S.,
White, J. W. & Tsuji, G. Y.  Decision Support System for
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
Agrotechnology Transfer. Ver. 4.0. University of Hawaii,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Hubick, K. & Farquhar, G. D.  Carbon isotope discrimination
and the ratio of carbon gained to water lost in barley
cultivars. Plant Cell Environ. 12, 795–804.
Hufstetler, E. V., Boerma, H. R., Carter, T. E. & Earl, H. J. 
Genotypic variation for three physiological traits affecting
drought tolerance in soybean. Crop Sci. 47, 25–35.
IPCC  Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
and New York, pp. 1–32.
Jamieson, P. D., Porter, J. R., Goudriaan, J., Ritchie, J. T., Van
Keulen, H. & Stol, W.  A comparison of the models
AFRCWHEAT2, CERES wheat, Sirius, SUCROS2 and
SWHEAT with measurements from wheat grown under
drought. Field Crops Res. 55, 23–44.
Johnen, T., Boettcher, U. & Kage, H.  A variable thermal time
of the double ridge to flag leaf emergence phase improves the
predictive quality of a CERES-Wheat type phenology model.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 89, 62–69.
Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C. H., Boote, K. J.,
Batchelor, W. D., Hunt, A., Wilkens, P. W., Singh, U.,
Gijsman, A. J. & Ritchie, J. T.  DSSAT cropping system
model. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 235–265.
Kang, Y., Khan, S. & Ma, X.  Climate change impacts on crop
yield, crop water productivity and food security – A review.
Prog. Nat. Sci. 19, 1665–1674.
Khaliq, T., Mubeen, M., Ali, A., Ahmad, A., Wajid, A., Rasul, F. &
Nasim, W.  Effect of diverse irrigation regimes on growth
parameters and yield of cotton under Faisalabad conditions.
Int. Poster J. Sci. Tech. 2, 81–85.
Kimbal, B. A.  Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield. An
assemblage of analysis of 430 prior observations. Agron. J. 75,
779–788.
Liu, H. L., Yang, J. Y., Drury, C. F., Reynolds, W. D., Tan, C. S.,
Bai, Y. L., He, P., Jin, J. & Hoogenboom, G.  Using the
DSSAT-CERES-Maize model to simulate crop yield and
nitrogen cycling in fields under long-term continuous maize
production. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 89 (3), 313–328.
Liu, S., Yang, J. Y., Zhang, X. Y., Drury, C. F., Reynolds, W. D. &
Hoogenboom, G.  Modelling crop yield, soil water
content and soil temperature for a soybean–maize rotation
under conventional and conservation tillage systems in
Northeast China. Agric. Water Manag. 123, 32–44.
Long, S. P., Marshall-Colon, A. & Zhu, X. G.  Meeting the
global food demand of the future by engineering crop
photosynthesis and yield potential. Cell 161 (1), 56–66.
Luo, Q., Williams, M. & Bellotti, W.  Quantitative and visual
assessments of climate change impacts on South Australian
wheat production. Agric. Syst. 77, 173–186.
Modala, N. R., Ale, S., Rajan, N., Munster, C. L., DeLaune, P. B.,
Thorp, K. R., Nair, S. S. & Barnes, E. M.  Evaluation of the
CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model for the Texas rolling plains
 1675 M. Mubeen et al. | Evaluating climate change impact on water requirement of cotton-wheat by DSSAT
region and simulation of deficit irrigation strategies for increasing
water use efficiency. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 58 (3), 685–696.
Mubeen, M., Khaliq, T., Ahmad, A., Ali, A., Rasul, F. & Hussain, J.
 Quantification of seed cotton yield and water use
efficiency of cotton under variable irrigation schedules. Crop
Environ. 3 (1–2), 54–57.
Mubeen, M., Ahmad, A., Wajid, A., Khaliq, T. & Bakhsh, A. a
Evaluating CSM-CERES-Maize model for irrigation
scheduling in semi-arid conditions of Punjab, Pakistan.
Int. J. Agric. Biol. 15, 1–10.
Mubeen, M., Ahmad, A., Wajid, A. & Bakhsh, A. b Evaluating
different irrigation scheduling criteria for autumn-sown
maize under semi-arid environment. Pak. J. Bot. 45 (4),
1293–1298.
Mubeen, M., Ahmad, A., Wajid, A., Khaliq, T., Sultana, S. R.,
Hussain, S., Ali, A., Ali, H. & Nasim, W. c Effect of
growth stage-based irrigation schedules on biomass
accumulation and resource use efficiency of wheat cultivars.
Am. J. Plant Sci. 4, 1435–1442.
Murthy, V. R. K.  Crop growth modeling and its applications
in agricultural meteorology. In: Satellite Remote Sensing and
GIS Applications in Agricultural Meteorology Workshop,
7–11 July 2004, Dehra Dun, India (M. V. K. Sivakumar, P. S.
Roy, K. Harsen & S. K. Saha, eds), pp. 235–261.
Nasim, W., Ahmad, A., Wajid, A., Ahmad, S., Khaliq, T., Sultana,
S. R., Maqbool, M. M., Mudassir, M. A., Munis, M. F. H.,
Chaudhary, H. J., Hammad, H. M., Sajjad, M., Mubeen, M. &
Abbas, T.  Wheat productivity in arid and semi arid
environment of Pakistan using crop simulation model. Int.
Poster J. Sci. Tech. 2, 28–35.
Nasim, W., Belhouchette, H., Tariq, M., Fahad, S., Hammad, H. M.,
Mubeen, M., Munis, M. F. H., Chaudhary, H. J., Khan, I.,
Mahmood, F., Abbas, T., Rasul, F., Nadeem, M., Bajwa, A. A.,
Ullah, N., Alghabari, F. & Saud, S. a Correlation studies
on nitrogen for sunflower crop across the agroclimatic
variability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (4), 3658–3670.
Nasim, W., Belhouchette, H., Ahmad, A., Rahman, M. H., Jabran,
K., Ullah, K., Fahad, S., Shakeel, M. & Hoogenboom, G.
b Modelling climate change impacts and adaptation
strategies for sunflower in Punjab-Pakistan. Outlook Agric.
45 (1), 39–45.
Nawaz, H., Hussain, N., Yasmeen, A., Rehmani, M. I. A. &
Nasrullah, H. M.  Pictorial review of critical stages at
vegetative and reproductive growth in wheat for irrigation
water regimes. Appl. Sci. Bus. Econ. 2, 1–7.
Ortiz, B. V., Hoogenboom, G., Vellidis, G., Boote, K., Davis, R. F.
& Perry, C.  Adapting the CROPGRO-cotton model to
simulate cotton biomass and yield under southern root-knot
nematode parasitism. Trans. ASABE 52, 2129–2140.
Otegui, M. E., Ruiz, R. A. & Petruzzi, D.  Modeling hybrid and
sowing date effects on potential grain yield of maize in a
humid temperate region. Field Crops Res. 47, 167–174.
First received 15 August 2019; accepted in revised form 20 September 2019. Available online 24 October 2019
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/11/4/1661/830429/jwc0111661.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water and Climate Change | 11.4 | 2020
Priestley, C. H. B. & Taylor, R. J.  On the assessment of surface
heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon.
Weather Rev. 100, 81–92.
Quisenberry, J. E. & McMichael, B. L.  Genetic variation
among cotton germplasm for water-use efficiency. Environ.
Exp. Bot. 31, 453–460.
Saranga, Y., Jiang, C. X., Wright, R. J., Yakir, D. & Paterson, A. H.
 Genetic dissection of cotton physiological responses to
arid conditions and their inter-relationships with
productivity. Plant Cell Environ. 27, 263–277.
Sharif, H., Wang, J. & Georgakakos, A. P.  Modeling regional
crop yield and irrigation demand using SMAP type of soil
moisture data. J. Hydrometeorol. 16, 904–916.
Siahpoosh, M. R., Dehghanian, E. & Kamgar, A.  Drought
tolerance evaluation of bread wheat genotypes using water
use efficiency, evapotranspiration efficiency, and drought
susceptibility index. Crop Sci. 51, 1198–1204.
Soler, C. M. T., Sentelhas, P. C. & Hoogenboom, G.  Application
of the CSM-CERES-Maize model for planting date evaluation
and yield forecasting for maize grown off-season in a
subtropical environment. Eur. J. Agron. 27, 165–177.
Thorp, K., Ale, S., Bange, M., Barnes, E., Hoogenboom, G.,
Lascano, R., McCarthy, A. C., Nair, S., Paz, J. O., Rajan, N.,
Reddy, K. R., Wall, G. W. & White, J. W.  Development
and application of process-based simulation models for
cotton production: a review of past, present, and future
directions. J. Cotton Sci. 18 (1), 10–47.
Trnka, M., Martin, D. & Zdeň ek, Z.  Climate change impacts
and adaptation strategies in spring barley production in the
Czech Republic. Climatic Change 64, 227–255.
Van Den Boogaard, R., Alewijnse, D., Veneklaas, E. J. & Lambers,
H.  Growth and water-use efficiency of 10 Triticum
aestivum cultivars at different water availability in relation to
allocation of biomass. Plant Cell Environ. 20, 200–210.
Wajid, A., Ahmad, A., Hussain, M., urRahman, M. H., Khaliq, T.,
Mubeen, M., Rasul, F., Bashir, U., Awais, M., Iqbal, J., Sultana,
S. R. & Hoogenboom, G.  Modeling growth,
development and seed-cotton yield for varying nitrogen
increments and planting dates using DSSAT. Pak. J. Agri. Sci.
51, 639–647.
Wallach, D. & Goffinet, C.  Mean squared error of prediction
as a criterion for evaluating and comparing system models.
Eco. Model. 44, 200–306.
Wang, W., Yu, Z., Zhang, W., Shao, Q., Zhang, Y., Luo, Y., Jiao, X.
& Xu, J.  Responses of rice yield, irrigation water
requirement and water use efficiency to climate change in
China: historical simulation and future projections. Agric
Water Manag. 146, 249–261.
Yu, W., Yang, Y., Savitsky, A., Alford, D., Brown, C., Wescoat, J.,
Debowicz, D. & Robinson, S.  The Indus Basin of
Pakistan: the Impacts of Climate Risks on Water and
Agriculture. World Bank, Washington, DC.