Advertisement

Evaluation of the CSM-CROPGRO-Soybean Model for Dual-Purpose Soyabean in Kenya

  • A. Nyambane
  • D. Mugendi
  • G. Olukoye
  • V. Wasike
  • P. Tittonell
  • B. Vanlauwe
Chapter

Abstract

Limited information is available on the potential performance of introduced dual purpose varieties across different Kenyan soils and agro-ecological environments and consistency across sites and seasons. Crop simulation modeling offers an opportunity to explore the potential of and select introduced cultivars for new areas before establishing costly and time-consuming field trials. Dual purpose soybeans were introduced due to their ability to improve soils and at the same time provide substantial grain yields. The objective of this study was to derive genetic coefficients of recently introduced dual purpose soybean varieties and to explore the reliability of the Cropping System Model (CSM)-CROPGRO-Soybean model in simulating phenology and yield of the dual purpose varieties under different environments. Field trials for seven varieties were conducted across three sites in two seasons and data on phenology and management, soil characteristics and weather was collected and used in the CROPGRO model. A stepwise procedure was used in the calibration of the model to derive the genetic coefficients. Two sets of data from Kakamega and Kitale were used in calibration process while 2006 data for Kakamega and Msabaha, were used for evaluation of the model. The derived genetic coefficients provided simulated values of various development and growth parameters that were in good agreement with their corresponding observed values for most parameters. Model evaluation with independent data sets gave similar results. The differences among the cultivars were also expressed through the differences in the derived genetic coefficients. CROPGRO was able to accurately predict growth, phenology and yield. The model predicted the first flowering dates to within 2–3 days of the observed values, the first pod dates within 3 days of the observed values and yields within 5–300 kg ha−1 of the observed yields. The genetic coefficients derived in CROPGRO model can, therefore, be used to predict soybean yield and phenology of the dual purpose soybean varieties across different agro-ecological zones.

Keywords

DSSAT Cropping System Model CROPGRO-Soybean Calibration Evaluation Promiscuous soybean varieties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the TSBF soybean project in collaboration with KEPHIS. We would like to acknowledge the work done by KEPHIS and TSBF staff in ensuring the success of the field trials and this research as a whole. Special thanks to AfNET for sponsoring the DSSAT training and the provision of the software for use.

References

  1. Addiscot T, Smith J, Bradbury N (1995) Critical evaluation of models and their parameters. J Envir Qual 24:803–807Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal PK, Kalra N (1994) Analyzing the limitation set by climatic factors, genotype, and water and nitrogen availability on productivity of wheat II. Climatically potential yields and management strategies. Field Crop Res 36:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggarwal PK, Matthews RB, Kropff MJ (1995) Opportunities for the application of systems approaches in plant breeding. In: Aggarwal PK, Matthews RB, Kropff MJ, vanLaar HH (eds) SARP research proceedings. Institute International Rice Research, Los Banos, pp 135–144Google Scholar
  4. Alagarswamy G, Singh P, Hoogenboom G, Wani SP, Pathak P, Virmani SM (2000) Evaluation and application of the CROPGRO-soybean simulation model in a vertic inceptisol. Agr Syst 63:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson J, Ingram J (1993) Tropical soil biology and fertility. A hand book of methods, 2nd edn. CABI, Wallingford, 221 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Banterng P, Patanothai A, Pannangpetch K, Jogloy S, Hoogenboom G (2004) Determination of genetic coefficients for peanut lines for breeding applications. Eur J Agron 21:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchet R, Bouniols A, Gelfi N, Wallace SU (1989) Response of determinate and indeterminate soybeans to fertilizing irrigation in soils of different depths. In: Pascale AJ (ed) Proceedings of 4th world soybean research conference, 5–9 March 1989, Buenos-Aires. Orientancion Grafica Editora Buenos Aires SRL, Buenos Aires, pp 740–745Google Scholar
  8. Boote KJ, Tollenaar M (1994) Modeling genetic yield potential. In: Boote KJ, Bennett JM, Sinclair TR, Paulsen GM (eds) Physiology and determination of crop yield. ASA – CSSA – SSSA, Madison, pp 533–565Google Scholar
  9. Boote KJ, Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Wilkerson GG (1997) Evaluation of the CROPGRO-soybean model over a wide range of experiments. In: Kropff MJ et al (eds) Systems approaches for sustainable agricultural development: applications of systems approaches at the field level. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 113–133Google Scholar
  10. Boote KJ, Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Pickering NE (1998a) The CROPGRO model for grain legumes. In: Tsuji GY et al (eds) Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 99–128Google Scholar
  11. Boote KJ, Jones JW, Hoogenboom G (1998b) Simulation of crop growth: CROPGRO MODEL. In: Peart RM, Curry RB (eds) Agricultural systems modeling and simulation. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 651–692Google Scholar
  12. Butterfield RE, Morison JI (1992) Modelling the impact of climate warming on winter cereal development. Agr Forest Meteorol 62:241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheminin’gwa GN, Muthomi JW, Obudho EO (2004) Screening of promiscuous soybean varieties in the North Rift valley of Kenya. Legume research network project newsletter. Issue no. 11Google Scholar
  14. Colson J, Bouniols A, Jones JW (1995) Soybean reproductive development: adapting a model for European cultivars. Agron J 87:1129–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper RL (1977) Response of soybean cultivars to narrow rows and planting rates under weed-free conditions. Agron J 69:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dorich RA, Nelson DW (1984) Evaluation of manual cadmium reduction methods for determination of nitrate in potassium chloride extracts of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grimm SS, Jones JW, Boote KJ, Hesketh JD (1993) Parameter estimation for predicting flowering dates of soybean cultivars. Crop Sci 33:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadley HH, Hymnowitz T (1973) Speciation and cytogenetics. In: Caldwel BE (ed) Soyabeans: improvement production and uses. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 97–116Google Scholar
  19. Heiniger RW, Vanderlip RL, Welch WS (1997) Developing guidelines for replanting grain sorghum: I. Validation and sensitivity analysis of the SORKAM sorghum growth model. Agr J 89:5–83Google Scholar
  20. Hodges T, French V (1985) Soybean growth stages modeled from temperature, daylength and water availability. Agron J 77:500–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoogenboom G, Wilkens PW, Tsuji GY (eds) (1999) DSSAT version 3, vol 4. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoogenboom G, Jones JW, Wilkens PW, Porter CH, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Boote KJ, Singh U, Uryasev O, Bowen WT, Gijsman AJ, du Toit A, White JW, Tsuji GY (2004) Decision support system for agro-technology transfer version 4.0 [CD-ROM]. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunt LA, Pararajasingham S, Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Imamura DT, Ogoshi RM (1993) GENCALC: software to facilitate the use of crop models for analyzing field experiments. Agron J 85:1090–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IBSNAT (International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Transfer Project) (1989) Technical report 1.Experimental design and data collection procedure for IBSNAT. The minimum data sets for systems analysis and crop simulation, 3rd edn. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  25. IITA (2000) International Institute of Tropical AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaetzold R, Schmidt H (1983) Farm management handbook of Kenya: natural conditions and farm management information, vol II/A. Nyanza and Western Provinces, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya in cooperation with German Agricultural Team (GAT) of GTZ, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaetzold R, Schmidt H, Hornetz B, Shisanya C (2006) Farm management handbook of Kenya: natural conditions and farm management information, vol II/C. Nyanza and Western Provinces, Ministry of Agriculture, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter CH, Boote KJ, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Wilkens PW, Singh U, Gijsman AJ, Ritchie JT (2003) DSSAT cropping system model. Eur J Agron 18:235–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaur P, Hundal SS (1999) Forecasting growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) with a dynamic simulation model PNUTGRO under Punjab conditions. J Agric Sci 133:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kueneman EA, Root WR, Dashiell KE, Hohenberg J (1984) Breeding soybean for the tropics capable of nodulating effectively with indigenous Rhizobium spp. Plant Soil 82:387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar A, Pandey V, Shekh AM, Dixit SK, Kumar M (2008) Evaluation of CROPGRO-soybean (glycine max. [L] Merrill) model under varying environment condition. Ama Eurasian J Agron 1(2):34–40Google Scholar
  32. Maingi JM, Gitonga NM, Shisanya CA, Hornetz B, Muluvi GM (2006) Population levels of indigenous bradyrhizobia nodulating promiscuous soybean in two Kenyan soils of the semi-arid and semi-humid agroecological zones. J Agr Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 107(2):149–159Google Scholar
  33. Mavromatis T, Boote KJ, Jones JW, Irmak A, Shinde D, Hoogenboom G (2001) Developing genetic coefficients for crop simulation models with data from crop performance trials. Crop Sci 41:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer GE, Curry RB, Streeter JG, Mederski HJ (1979) SOYMOD/OARDC – a dynamic simulator of soybean growth, development and seed yield: I. Theory, structure and validation. Research Bulletin 1113. Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, WoosterGoogle Scholar
  35. Muchow RC (1985) Phenology: seed yield and water use of grain legumes grown under different soil water regimes in a semiarid tropical environment. Field Crop Res 11:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Musangi RS (1997) Soyabean cultivation in Kenya: status and prospects. Villa Maria Consultants, FAO Briefing paperGoogle Scholar
  37. Piper EL, Boote KJ, Jones JW, Grimm SS (1996a) Comparison of two phenology models for predicting flowering and maturity date of soybean. Crop Sci 36:1606–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piper EL, Smit MA, Boote KJ, Jones JW (1996b) The role of daily minimum temperature in modulating the development rate to flowering in soybean. Field Crop Res 47:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piper EL, Boote KJ, Jones JW (1998) Evaluation and improvements of crop models using regional cultivar trial data. Trans ASAE 14:435–446Google Scholar
  40. Pulver EL, Kueneman EA, Ranga-Rao V (1985) Identification of promiscuous nodulating soybean efficient in nitrogen fixation. Crop Sci 25:660–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robert AC, Keyser HH, Singleton PW, Borthakur D (2000) Bradyrhizobia spp (TGx) isolates nodulating the new soybean cultivars in Africa are diverse and distinct from bradyrhizobia that nodulate north American soybeans. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 50:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sinclair TR (1986) Water and nitrogen limitations in soybean grain production: I. model development. Field Crop Res 15:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh P, Boote KJ, Virmani SM (1994) Evaluation of the groundnut model PNUTGRO for crop response to plant population and row spacing. Field Crop Res 39:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsuji GY, Uehara G, Balas S (eds) (1994) DSSAT version 3, vol 1–3. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  45. Wanjekeche (2004) Screening of promiscuous soybean varieties in the north rift valley of Kenya. Legume research network project newsletter. Issue no. 11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Nyambane
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Mugendi
    • 1
  • G. Olukoye
    • 1
  • V. Wasike
    • 3
  • P. Tittonell
    • 4
  • B. Vanlauwe
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesKenyatta UniversityNairobiKenya
  2. 2.Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (TSBF-CIAT)NairobiKenya
  3. 3.Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)NairobiKenya
  4. 4.CIRADMount pleasant HarareZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations