Elsevier

Field Crops Research

Volume 259, 15 December 2020, 107969
Field Crops Research

Understanding effects of genotype × environment × sowing window interactions for durum wheat in the Mediterranean basin

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107969Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Advanced sowings compared to traditional may raise durum wheat yield in Mediterranean.

  • Water stress reduction and longer grain filling were the major factors for yield increase.

  • Short-cycle cultivars were less affected by hot and dry Mediterranean conditions than medium-long cultivars.

Abstract

Durum wheat is one of the most important crops in the Mediterranean basin. The choice of the cultivar and the sowing time are key management practices that ensure high yield. Crop simulation models could be used to investigate the genotype × environment × sowing window (G × E×SW) interactions in order to optimize farmers’ actions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the wheat model SiriusQuality in simulating durum wheat yields in Mediterranean environments and its potential to explore the G × E×SW interactions. SiriusQuality was assessed in multiple growing seasons at seven sites located in Italy, Spain and Morocco, where locally adapted cultivars were grown. The model showed good ability in predicting anthesis and maturity date (Pearson r >0.8), as well as above ground biomass and grain yield (6 % < nRMSE < 18 %). The model was then used to find the optimal 30-day sowing window to maximize grain yields at four sites, two were located in Italy (Florence, Foggia), and the other two were in Spain (Santaella) and Morocco (Sidi El Aydi) respectively. Among the cultivars, on the average between all sowing window, Amilcar had the best performance in Foggia (+33 % compared to the traditional cultivar Simeto) and in Sidi El Aydi (+22 % compared to Karim), Karim in Florence (+19 % compared to Creso) and in Santaella (+6 % compared to Amilcar). Instead Creso and Simeto showed the lowest production at all locations. The results showed that an earlier sowing window compared to the traditional one would have a positive effect on wheat yields in all environments tested, because of increased maximum leaf area index, grain number and size, and grain filling duration. Moreover, with earlier sowing, grain filling coincides with higher soil water availability, reducing the water stress and increasing the accumulation of dry mass in grains. In cooler and wetter locations, cultivars characterized by higher leaf area index and radiation use efficiency had the higher number of grains, while in the hottest and driest locations, short-cycle cultivars with high grain dry matter potential (e.g. through enhanced “stay green” capacity) should be preferred.

Introduction

Durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum) is one of the most important crops in the Mediterranean basin, which contributes to more than 38 % to the global durum wheat production (IGCC, 2017). In general, grain yield and quality are strongly influenced by the variability of weather conditions during the season (Porter and Semenov, 2005). Moreover, wheat is mostly sensitive to late frosts as well as to high temperatures and water deficit during the reproductive and grain filling phases (Porter and Gawith, 1999; Farooq et al., 2011; Alghabari et al., 2014). Terminal droughts could render the crop more sensitive to heat stress, as well as heat stress could be exacerbated by water stress, resulting in even more negative effects on the grain yield (Asseng et al., 2011). Such environmental conditions, typical of the Mediterranean climate, are the main climatic constraints for durum wheat yield in the Mediterranean basin (Ferrise et al., 2015).

Appropriate management practices are essential to ensure high wheat production. The sowing time and the cultivars choice are among the key factors (Connor et al., 1992; Bassu et al., 2009), since they act on the duration and timing of developmental phases and have the potential to avoid adverse environmental conditions in wheat sensitive stages (Ferrise et al., 2010; Bassu et al., 2009; Tapley et al., 2013). It is proved that the combination of optimal sowing date with early or late cultivars allows maximizing the yield and avoid stresses due to frost, heat and drought stresses around the anthesis and during grain filling (Ababaei and Chenu, 2020; Zheng et al., 2012), while favouring precipitation, temperature and radiation accumulation in the growing season (Tapley et al., 2013). Long-season cultivars may benefit from early sowing, thanks to an increased intercepted radiation during winter, thereby resulting in a higher accumulation of dry matter by the crop, while escaping terminal droughts (Zheng et al., 2012). On the other hand, this practice is not appropriate with early cultivars, when frost risk is generally high during winter or early spring (Andrarzian et al., 2015). Late sowing is usually recommended in locations with high frost risk (Connor et al., 1992), because it helps the crop to escape from frost conditions during the sensitive phases of crop growth. However, late sowing may induce a shortening of crop cycle (Sharma et al., 2008) and expose the crop to warmer and drier conditions during anthesis and grain filling (Panozzo and Eagles, 1999; Subedi et al., 2007). In the Mediterranean basin, the sowing window of durum wheat starts with the first significant rainfall after the summer season and ends when a sowing date is too late to allow the completion of the crop cycle. In the Mediterranean basin, the optimal combination of sowing window and cultivar should result in avoiding (or minimizing the impact of) frost damage during early springs as well as heat and drought conditions during anthesis and grain filling (Bassu et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2020).

It is widely recognised that wheat yield and grain quality are affected by genotype (G), environment (E), sowing window (SW) and their interactions (Sharma et al., 2008; Tapley et al., 2013; Haq et al., 2017). The complexity to test G × E × SW interactions in field experiments could be reduced by testing alternative scenarios with crop simulation models (Stapper and Harris, 1989; Chenu et al., 2017), which are able to reproduce crop growth and development, considering the interactions between soil, weather and crop management. Crop models have been largely used to extrapolate agronomic research findings over time and space (Chenu et al., 2017), to assess crops performance in response to climatic conditions (Salado-Navarro and Sinclair, 2009; Soltani et al., 2013; Dettori et al., 2017) and to identify the best management practices in a given environment (Soltani and Hoogenboom, 2007; Rozbicki et al., 2015). Several crop modelling studies have been carried out to investigate the effect of shifting the sowing date in future climatic scenarios (Moriondo et al., 2010; Dettori et al., 2017; Nouri et al., 2017) or to analyze the combination of adaptation strategies, including the shifting of the sowing date (Ruiz-Ramos et al., 2018; Giuliani et al., 2019) or to define the optimal flowering period in Australian environments (Flohr et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020) but only few studies focused on the optimization of the sowing window in the Mediterranean basin under present climatic conditions (Bassu et al., 2009).

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of genotype × environment × sowing window in four areas of the Mediterranean basin for current climate, by using the wheat simulation model SiriusQuality. First, the model was calibrated and evaluated in the targeted environments; then, a scenario analysis was carried out to identify the optimal sowing windows for early and late cultivars in order to quantify the impact of G × E × SW interactions on wheat growth and development.

Section snippets

Experimental sites

Data were collected from field experiments carried out in seven Mediterranean locations where durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum) is widely grown (Fig. 1). The experimental sites were located in Florence (43.76 °N, 11.21 °E, 42 m elevation) and Foggia (41.26 °N, 15.30 °E, 90 m elevation), in central and southern Italy, respectively, in Carmona (37.47 °N, 5.63 °W, 253 m elevation) and Santaella (37.57 °N, 4.85 °W, 238 m elevation), in southern Spain, in Marchouch (33.98 °N, 6.49 °W,

Model evaluation

For both the calibration and validation data sets, MAE for anthesis or heading date and maturity date were < 9.3 days (Table 2, Fig. 3C-E), and nRMSE for grain yield and total above ground biomass ranged from 6 to 18 % and from 10 to 32 %, respectively (Table 2, Fig. 3A-d-F-G-H). The overall nRMSE for grain yield was only 5 % higher in validation than in calibration data set. All d values for phenology and grain yield except heading date in Carmona (that is, the Spanish site) were > 0.70. On

SiriusQuality evaluation

The value of seven varietal parameters describing the four wheat cultivars used in this study were within the literature range for Sirius (Semenov et al., 2014) and SiriusQuality (Tao et al., 2017). Moreover, they were comparable to previous modelling studies with Karim, Creso and Simeto (Bassu et al., 2011; Dettori et al., 2017; Bregaglio et al., 2015). No published parametrization for Amilcar cultivar was found.

SiriusQuality provided a good estimation of phenology, grain yield, grain N yield

Conclusions

In this study, a crop model was used to analyze the effect of environment, genotype and sowing window on wheat yield in the Mediterranean basin. The results indicated that different strategies, depending on the location, could be used to increase wheat yield. In hotter and drier environments, where temperature and water are the main limiting factors, it is crucial that grain filling occurs earlier in the season to guarantee a longer duration of this phase, due to lower temperature and adequate

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Gloria Padovan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Pierre Martre: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Mikhail A. Semenov: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Alberto Masoni: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Simone Bregaglio: Resources, Writing - review & editing. Domenico Ventrella: Resources,

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support from the following sources: FACCE JPI MACSUR2 through the Italian Ministry for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (D.M. n. 24064/7303/15); the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Grant Agreement No. [727247]; the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, through the Designing Future Wheat (DFW) program (BB/P016855/1); the AgriDigit-Agromodelli project (DM n. 36502 of 20/12/2018), funded by the

References (81)

  • P.D. Jamieson et al.

    Sirius: a mechanistic model of wheat response to environmental variation

    Eur. J. Agron.

    (1998)
  • A. Maiorano et al.

    Crop model improvement reduces the uncertainty of the response to temperature of multi-model ensembles

    Field Crop. Res.

    (2017)
  • P. Martre et al.

    Modelling protein content and composition in relation to crop nitrogen dynamics for wheat

    Eur. J. Agr.

    (2006)
  • C. Moeller et al.

    Plant available soil water at sowing in Mediterranean environments - is it a useful criterion to aid nitrogen fertiliser and sowing decisions?

    Field Crop. Res.

    (2009)
  • M. Nouri et al.

    Towards shifting planting date as an adaptation practice for rainfed wheat response to climate change

    Agr. Water Manage.

    (2017)
  • J.R. Porter et al.

    Temperature and the growth and development of wheat: a review

    Eur. J. Agr.

    (1999)
  • C. Rivera-Amado et al.

    Optimizing dry-matter partitioning for increased spike growth, grain number and harvest index in spring wheat

    Field Crops Res.

    (2019)
  • J. Rozbicki et al.

    Influence of the cultivar, environment and management on the grain yield and bread-making quality in winter wheat

    J. Cereal Sci.

    (2015)
  • M. Ruiz-Ramos et al.

    Adaptation response surfaces for managing wheat under perturbed climate and CO2 in a Mediterranean environment

    Agric. Syst.

    (2018)
  • L.R. Salado-Navarro et al.

    Crop rotations in Argentina: analysis of water balance and yield using crop models

    Agric. Syst.

    (2009)
  • M.A. Semenov et al.

    Adapting wheat in Europe for climate change

    J. Cereal Sci.

    (2014)
  • A. Soltani et al.

    Assessing crop management options with crop simulation models based on generated weather data

    Field Crop. Res.

    (2007)
  • M. Stapper et al.

    Assessing the productivity of wheat genotypes in a Mediterranean climate, using a crop simulation model

    Field Crop. Res.

    (1989)
  • F. Tao et al.

    Designing future barley ideotypes using a crop model ensemble

    Eur. J. Agr.

    (2017)
  • H. Zhang et al.

    Wheat grain number and yield: the relative importance of physiological traits and source-sink balance in southern Australia

    Eur. J. Agron.

    (2019)
  • B. Ababaei et al.

    Heat shocks increasingly impede grain filling but have little effect on grain setting across the Australian wheatbelt

    Agric. For. Meteorol

    (2020)
  • F. Alghabari et al.

    Effect of Rht Alleles on the tolerance of wheat grain set to high temperature and drought stress during booting and anthesis

    J. Agric. Crop Sci.

    (2014)
  • B. Andrarzian et al.

    Determining optimum sowing date of wheat using CSM-CERES-Wheat model

    J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci.

    (2015)
  • S. Asseng et al.

    The impact of temperature variability on wheat yield

    Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy

    (2011)
  • S. Bassu et al.

    Effects of sowing data and cultivar on radiation use efficiency in durum wheat

    Crop Pasture Sci.

    (2011)
  • J. Bertheloot et al.

    Dynamics of light and nitrogen distribution during grain filling within wheat canopy

    Plant Phys.

    (2008)
  • G. Borràs-Gelonch et al.

    Genetic control of pre-anthesis duration in two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) populations and its influence on leaf appearance, tillering, and dry matter accumulation

    J. Exp. Bot.

    (2012)
  • S. Bregaglio et al.

    New multi-model approach gives good stimations of wheat yield under semi-arid climate in Morocco

    Agr. Sust. Dev.

    (2015)
  • N. Brisson et al.

    Conceptual basis, formalisations and parameterization of the stics crop model

    Quae, Paris, France

    (2009)
  • D.J. Connor et al.

    Development, growth, water-use and yield of a spring and a winter wheat in response to time of sowing

    Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.

    (1992)
  • FAOSTAT

    Crop Prospects and Food Situation

    (2012)
  • M. Farooq et al.

    Heat stress in wheat during reproductive and grain-filling phases

    Critical reviews in Plant Sci.

    (2011)
  • R. Ferrise et al.

    Monthly-to-seasonal predictions of durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin

    Clim. Chang. Res. Lett.

    (2015)
  • R.A. Fischer

    Wheat physiology: a review of recent developments

    Crop&Parture Sci

    (2011)
  • B.M. Flohr et al.

    Water and temperature stress define the optimal flowering period for wheat in south-eastern Australia

    Field Crop Res.

    (2017)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text