Mote Balaji Mohan

CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF CROPGRO-peanut
(DSSAT v.4.6) MODEL FOR SUMMER GROUNDNUT AND

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN
MIDDLE GUJARAT
A
THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE
ANAND AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE
OF
Doctor of Philosophy
(AGRICULTURE)
IN
AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY
BY
MOTE BALAJI MOHAN

M. Sc. (Agri.)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY

B. A. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
ANAND – 388 110
2017
(Registration No. 04-2378-2014)

Abstract
CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF CROPGRO- peanut
(DSSAT v.4.6) MODEL FOR SUMMER GROUNDNUT AND
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN
MIDDLE GUJARAT
Name of Student Major Advisor
Mote Balaji Mohan Dr. Vyas Pandey
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY

B. A. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
ANAND 388 110
ABSTRACT
Field experiments were carried out during the summer season of the year
2015 and 2016 was laid out in a split plot design with three date of sowing i.e.,
(D1- 31st January, D2-15th February, D3- 02nd March) as main plot treatments and
four cultivars viz., (V1-GG 2, V2-GG 20, V3-GJG 31 and V4-TG 26) as sub-plot
treatment with four replications. The results obtained during the course of study
revealed that the weather had played a significant role in deciding the yield of
groundnut. The result showed that During 2015 the maximum pod yield (2093
kg ha-1) was recorded under second date of sowing (15th February) and it was
statistically at par with first date of sowing (31st January) (1927 kg ha-1) and the
lowest pod yield (1724 kg ha-1) was recorded under third date of sowing (02nd
March). Similar trends were observed during 2016 also, with slightly higher
value of pod yield in comparison to 2015. Similarly in pooled analysis, also the
highest pod yield (2107 kg ha-1) was recorded under second date of sowing which
was significantly higher than the pod yield recorded under first date of sowing
(1939 kg ha-1) and third date of sowing (1767 kg ha-1). During both years and in
pooled data highest pod yield was recorded under second date of sowing, It might
be due to the late sown crop encountered higher temperature during reproductive
period, resulting in shortening the duration and accumulation of higher heat
units, resulting lowest pod yield.
Pod yield also significantly influenced by different cultivars during
individual years as well as in pooled analysis. During the year 2015, significantly
higher pod yield (2092 kg ha-1) was recorded by the cultivar V2 (GG 20) and it
was statistically at par with cultivar GG 2 (1967 kg ha-) followed by the cultivar
GJG 31 (1834 kg ha-1) and cultivar TG- 26 (1766 kg ha-1). During 2016 also,
significantly highest pod yield (2110 kg ha-1) was recorded by the cultivar V2
(GG 20) and it was statistically at par with cultivar GG 2 (2021 kg ha -1) as well
as cultivar GJG 31 (1945 kg ha-1). The lowest yield (1172 kg ha-1) was by the
cultivar V4 (GJG 31). In the pooled analysis significantly highest pod yield (2100
kg ha-1) was recorded by cultivar V2 (GG 20) and it was at par with cultivar GG
2 (1994 kg ha-1) followed by cultivar GJG 31 (1889 kg ha-1) and cultivar TG 26
(1769 kg ha-1) respectively. A similar trend was also found in the yield attributing
characters.
Growing degree days (GDD) accumulated during each phase of
groundnut as recorded by different dates of sowing, cultivars and years showed
that the accumulated GDD under different dates of sowing, from sowing to
physiological maturity was highest (2265 0C days) in second date of sowing (15th
February) followed by (2228 0C days) third date of sowing (02th March) and
(2096 0C days) in first date of sowing (31st January). It may be noticed that the
number of days taken to physiological maturity was maximum under (31 st
January) sown crop but the accumulated GDD was minimum (2096 0C days). In
case of different cultivars accumulation of GDD from sowing to physiological
maturity were more or less remained the same ranged between (2100 ± 160 0C
days). Between two years the accumulated GDD was higher (2236 0C days) in
2016 than that of 2015 (2156 0C days). A similar trend was also found for
photothermal units (PTU 0C days hrs.) and heliothermal units (HTU 0C days
hrs.). Correlation studies were contemplated to have an insight on the effect of
different weather parameters and there by the agrometeorological indices for the
production of groundnut crop and to identify the critical phases of groundnut
crop most sensitive to particular weather parameter.
Overall performance of the model based on the test criterion to evaluate
the CROPGRO-Peanut model for phenological and yield attributes of four
groundnut cultivars sown under three different dates of sowing during both the
years clearly indicated that simulation for phenology was very closer compared
to yield and yield components with acceptable per cent error. The higher yield
and yield components was observed in second date sown crop and model also
showed similar trend. Model output showed that the simulated values for
phenology, pod yield and yield components of the groundnut cultivars were close
to the corresponding observed values with per cent error ± 4.80, ± 9.0, 10.0
respectively. Thus the model could be used to predict the phenology and yield
accurately under different management conditions. Model also well simulated
the effects of variations in maximum temp., minimum temp., concentration of
CO2, combined effect of maximum temperature and CO2 level and combined
effect of minimum temperature and CO2 level on pod yield.

Dr. Vyas Pandey
Emeritus Scientist (ICAR)
Ex-Professor and Head
Department of Agricultural Meteorology
B. A. College of Agriculture
Anand Agricultural University
Anand – 388 110
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Calibration and validation of
CROPGRO–peanut (DSSAT v. 4.6) model for summer groundnut and
sensitivity analysis to climate change in middle Gujarat” submitted by
MOTE BALAJI MOHAN (Reg. No. 04-2378-2014) in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Agriculture) in the subject of AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY of the
Anand Agricultural University is a record of bonafide research work carried out
by him under my personal guidance and supervision and the thesis has not
previously formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma or other similar
title.
Place: Anand (Vyas Pandey)

Date: 11/12/2017 Major Advisor
ANAND- 388 110
DECLARATION
This is to declare that whole of the research work reported in the thesis
for the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Agriculture) in the subject of Agricultural
Meteorology is the result of investigation done by MOTE BALAJI MOHAN
undersigned under the direct guidance and supervision of Dr. VYAS PANDEY,
Emeritus Scientist (ICAR), Ex- Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural
Meteorology, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University,
Anand, Gujarat and no part of the research work has been submitted for any other
degree so far.
Place : Anand (MOTE B. M.)

Date : 11/12/2017 Name of Student
Countersigned by
(VYAS PANDEY)
Emeritus Scientist (ICAR)
Ex- Professor and Head
Department of Agricultural Meteorology
Anand- 388 110
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
As a novice research at the initial stage of my work, planning, I had

strange fell to be lost in the dense wood of research methodology. I am indeed
proud to mention that my experienced guide granted all his intellectual
resources to layout meticulous plans that enable me to manage all resources to
accomplish my research work. Therefore, my first and foremost humble thanks
to my Supervisor, Dr. Vyas Pandey, Emeritus Scientist (ICAR), Ex-Professor
and Head, Department of Agricultural Meteorology, Anand Agricultural
University, Anand, for his most valuable and inspirative guidance, keen interest,
philanthropic attitude and encouragement, throughout the course of the
investigation and for undertaking arduous task for preparation of this
manuscript.
Thanks are extended to all the supervisory committee members for their
valuable advice during the course of present studies. I am immensely rejoiced
to owe my gratitude to Dr. M. S. Kulsrestha, Professor & Head, Department of
Agril. Meteorology for providing necessary facilities during the course of
investigation.
I express my sincere thanks to teaching staff as well as non-teaching staff
of the Department of Agricultural Meteorology, AAU, Anand,
My heartfelt gratitude also goes to my colleagues Dr. M. G. Jadhav,
Dr. Mohan Wawge, Dr. D. D. Patil, Dr. Deepak Panpatte, Dr. S. B. Yadav,
Prof. N. G. Chaudhary, Dr. A. K. Mishra, Dr. Bharti Suthar, Vibha Tak, Dr.
Mayank Patel, Dr. Nilesh Pawar and Dr. Gajanan Kadam for their moral
support and encouragement.
Finally I extend my heartiest and sincere sense of gratitude to my
affectionate father Shri. Mohan Mote, mother Smt. Vimal Mote, brother Amol
Mote and my sister in law Anjali Mote, my spirited sisters Smt. Varsha L.
Bhosale and Priti B. Gaikwad for their prayers for my success.
Place: Anand
Date : 11/12/2017 (B. M. Mote)
CONTENT
Page
CHAPTER NUMBER and TITLE
No
I INTRODUCTION 1-8
1.1 Importance of groundnut 1
1.2 Soil 2
1.3 Climatic requirement 3
1.3.1 Heat unit requirement of the crop 4
1.4 Crop simulation model 4
1.4.1 DSSAT/ CROPGRO-peanut model 5
1.4.2 Calibration and validation of crop model 6
1.5 Climate change and groundnut production 7
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9-38
2.1 Crop weather relationship of groundnut cultivars 9
2.1.1 Temperature 9
2.1.2 Radiation 12
2.1.3 Rainfall 15
2.1.4 Soil moisture 17
2.1.5 Relative humidity 18
2.2 Relation to agrometeorological indices 19
2.3 Crop simulation modelling 23
2.4 Calibration and validation of models 29
Sensitivity analysis of CROPGRO-peanut model for
2.5 33
climate change studies
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 39-55
3.1 Experimental site 39
3.2 Climate 39
3.3 Soil characterestics 39
3.4 Experimental details 41
3.4.1 Layout 41
3.4.2 Treatment combinations 42
3.4.3 Experimental set up 42
3.5 Cultural operations 42
3.5.1 Land preparation 43
3.5.2 Fertilization 43
3.5.3 Seed treatment and sowing 43
3.5.4 Gap filling 43
3.5.5 Weeding and intercultivation 43
3.5.6 Plant protection 43
3.5.7 Harvesting and threshing 44
3.6 Agronomical and phenological observations 45
3.6.1 Growth attributing characters
3.6.1.1 Days taken for attainment of each
45
phenophases
3.6.1.2 Plant height (cm) 46
3.6.1.3 Number of branches per plant 46
3.6.1.4 Leaf area index (LAI) 46
3.6.1.5 Biomass accumulation and partitioning 46
3.6.2 Yield and yield attributing characters 46
3.6.2.1 Mature and immature pods per plant 46
3.6.2.2 Mature and immature pod weight per
47
plant
3.6.2.3 Shelling percentage 47
3.6.2.4 Test weight in gram (100 kernels) 47
3.6.2.5 Pod yield (kg ha-1) 47
3.6.2.6 Kernel yield (kg ha-1) 47
3.6.2.7 Haulm yield (kg ha-1) 47
3.6.2.8 Harvest index (%) 48
3.7 Meteorological observations 48
3.7.1 Daily observations 48
3.8 Computation of agrometeorological indices 48
3.8.1 Growing degree days (GDD) 48
3.8.2 Helio-thermal units (HTU) 49
3.8.3 Photo thermal unit (PTU) 49
3.9 Crop growth modeling 49
3.9.1 CROPGRO (DSSAT.v.4.6) model description
3.9.2 Input and output files
3.9.3 List of input requirement by DSSAT model
3.9.4 Calibration of the model
3.9.5 Validation of the model
Sensitivity of CROPGRO-peanut model for climate change
3.10
studies
3.11 Analysis of data
3.11.1 Statistical analysis
3.11.2 Correlation and Regression studies
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weather conditions during crop seasons summer 2015 and
4.1
2016
4.1.1 Air temperature
4.1.2 Relative humidity
4.1.3 Vapour pressure
4.1.4 Bright Sunshine Hours
4.1.5 Evaporation
4.2 Periodical observation
4.2.1 Plant height
4.2.2 Number of branches
4.2.3 Leaf area index
4.2.4 Dry matter partitioning
4.3 Phenological duration and heat unit accumulation
4.3.1 Phenophases
4.3.2 Agrometeorological indices
4.3.2.1 Growing degree days (GDD)
4.3.2.2 Photothermal units (PTU)
4.3.2.3 Heliothermal units (HTU)
4.4 Yield and yield attributing characters
4.4.1 Pod yield
4.4.2 Kernel yield
4.4.3 Haulm yield
4.4.4 Test weight
4.4.5 Shelling percentage
4.4.6 Harvest index
4.4.7 Number of mature pod
4.4.8 Number of immature pod
4.4.9 Weight of mature pod
4.4.10 Weight of immature pod
4.4.11 Plant height
4.5 Crop weather relationship
4.5.1 Correlation studies
CROPGRO-peanut (DSSAT v 4.6) model simulation
4.6
results
4.6.1 Genetic coefficient
4.6.2 Days to anthesis
4.6.3 Days to first pod initiation
4.6.4 Days to physiological maturity
4.6.6 Pod yield
4.6.7 Kernel yield
4.6.8 Haulm yield
4.6.9 Harvest index
4.7 Sensitivity analysis of CROPGRO-peanut model
4.7.1 Effects of maximum air temperature
4.7.2 Effects of minimum air temperature
4.7.3 Effects of carbon dioxide (CO2)
4.7.4 Combined effect of maximum temperature and
carbon dioxide
4.7.5 Combined effect minimum temperature and
carbon dioxide
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
REFERENCES i-xii
APPENDIX i-vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Table Index Page

No
3.3.1 Physico-chemical properties of the experimental plots 40
3.4.1 Details of treatment combinations 41
Calendar of field operations carried out during
3.5.1 44
investigation
3.9.2.1 CROPGRO (DSSAT) model input files
3.9.2.2 CROPGRO (DSSAT) model output files
Number of days for different phenological stages of
4.1 groundnut cultivars sown under three dates during two
crop seasons
Growing degree days (oC day) for different
4.2 phenological phases of groundnut cultivars sown under
three dates during two crop seasons
Photothermal unit (oC day hour) for different
Heliothermal unit (oC day hour) for different
Pod yield, kernel yield, haulm yield and test weight of
4.5 groundnut as influenced by dates of sowing and
cultivars
Interaction effects between dates of sowing and
4.6 cultivars (D x V) of groundnut for pod and yield kernel
yield
Shelling percent, harvest index, number of mature and
4.7 immature pods of groundnut as influenced by dates of
sowing and cultivars
Interaction effects between dates of sowing and
4.8 cultivars (D x V) of groundnut for number of mature
pod
Interaction effects between Year and variety (Y x V) for
4.9
number of immature pod
Weight of mature, immature pods, plant height and
4.10 number of branches of groundnut as influenced by dates
of sowing and cultivars
Correlation coefficients between phase wise weather
4.11
parameters and pod yield of groundnut
Genetic coefficients for cv. GG 2, GG 20, GJG 31 and
4.12
TG 26
Test criteria in evaluation of model with respect to
4.13
duration of phenology and growth
Test criteria in evaluation of model with respect to yield
4.14
and yield components
Effect of maximum and minimum temperature and CO2
4.15
concentration on pod yield of groundnut cultivars
Combined effect of maximum, minimum temperature
4.16 and CO2 concentration on pod yield of groundnut
cultivars
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure After
Title
No. Page no.
3.4.1 Layout of the experimental site
Phenophase wise prevailed maximum temperature
4.1.1
under different dates of sowing and cultivars
Phenophase wise minimum temperature under
4.1.2
different dates of sowing and cultivars
Phenophase wise mean temperature under different
4.1. 3
dates of sowing and cultivars
Phenophase wise morning relative humidity under
4.1.4
Phenophase wise afternoon relative humidity under
4.1.5
Phenophase wise morning vapour pressure under
4.1.6
Phenophase wise afternoon vapour pressure under
4.1.7
Phenophase wise mean vapour pressure under
4.1.8
Phenophase wise bright sunshine hours under
4.1.9
4.1.10 Phenophasewise evaporation under different dates of
Periodic plant height under different dates of sowing
4.2.1
and cultivars
Periodic number of branches per plant under
4.2.2
Periodic leaf area index under different dates of
4.2.3
Dry biomass partitioning during different dates of
4.2.4
sowing
4.2.5 Dry biomass partitioning under different cultivars
Mean observed and simulated (a) anthesis (DAS),
(b) first pod formation (DAS), (c) physiological
4.6.1
maturity (DAS) and (d) max. leaf area index for
dates of sowing and cultivars
Mean observed and simulated (a) kernel yield kg ha-
1
4.6.2 , (b) pod yield kg ha-1, (c) haulm yield kg ha-1 and
(d) harvest index for dates of sowing and cultivars
Effect of increased and decreased maximum
4.7.1
temperature on pod yield of groundnut cultivars
Effect of increased and decreased minimum
4.7.2
temperature on pod yield of groundnut cultivars
Effect of increased and decreased CO2 level on pod
4.7.3
yield of groundnut cultivars
Combined effect of maximum temperature and CO2
4.7.4
level on pod yield of groundnut cultivars
Combined effect of minimum temperature and CO2
4.7.5
level on pod yield of groundnut cultivars
LIST OF PLATES
Plat No. Title After page

no.
1 Field view of experimental site 41
2 Leaf area meter LICOR L2 3100 46
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Importance of groundnut
Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is known as king of oil seed crops and
important food legume of tropical as well as sub-tropical part of the world. Groundnut
is also known as “peanut”, “monkeynut”, “monilanut”, “pinda” and “gobbernut”. It is
the world’s most popular oilseed crop cultivated in more than 100 countries in all the
six continents. The world’s total production of groundnut is 39.83 million tonne from
24.00 million hectares of area with the productivity of 1660 kg ha-1 (Anonymous,
2017).
India is one of the major oilseeds producing country in the world. India occupies
the first position in the world in area and second in production after China and accounts
for about 19.75 % of world area and 12.20 % of production of the groundnut. India
produces around 4.86 million tonne of groundnut from 4.74 million hectares of land
with a productivity of 1020 kg ha-1 (Anonymous, 2017).
In India, 80 per cent of the groundnut area and 84 per cent of the production is
confined to the states of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and
Maharashtra. Among these, Gujarat ranks first both in area and production
(Anonymous, 2012). In Gujarat, the area under kharif and summer groundnut during
2011-12 was 1.65 and 0.74 million ha with the production of 2.64 and 1.24 million
tonnes, respectively. The average productivity of groundnut is 1603 kg ha-1 in kharif
and 1903 kg ha-1 in summer season (DOA, 2012). In Gujarat it is largely cultivated in
the districts of Junagadh, Jamnagar, Rajkot, Amreli, Bhavnagar, Sabarkantha and
Banaskantha. The handpicked selected (HPS) groundnut is mainly exported from
Saurashtra region of Gujarat state.

Introduction
Groundnut kernels are an excellent source of plant protein and contain 45 to 50
per cent oil, 27 to 33 per cent protein as well as essential minerals, carbohydrates and
vitamins. They play an important role in the dietary requirements for poor women and
children and haulms are used as livestock feed. Groundnut oil is composed of mixed
glycerides and contains a high proportion of unsaturated fatty acids viz., oleic (50 to 65
%) and linoleic (18 to 30 %) (Young, 1996). Groundnut contains amino acids including
cysteine’s which are essential for animal growth. The by-products of this crop like
haulm and cake have good nutritive value. The groundnut cake obtained after groundnut
oil extraction is rich in protein and considered as valuable organic manure and animal
feed, which contains 7 to 8 per cent N, 1.5 per cent P2O5 and 1 per cent K2O. Some
industrial products like paints, varnishes, soap and lubricating oils are also
manufactured from groundnut. The seed has several uses as whole seed or processed to
make peanut butter, oil, soups, stews and other products. There contain a good deal of
oil which is very easily digested and for this reason they are useful consumptive. The
oil is regarded as an excellent aperients or mild laxative and emollient which soften the
skin (Pandey and Bhatt, 2012).
1.2 Soil
Soil structure is an important factor affecting groundnut production. Groundnut
thrives best in well-drained, well aerated, light textured, loose, friable sandy loam or
sandy clay loam soils with good infiltration which helps in better seed germination and
seedling emergence, penetration of pegs, their development and harvesting owing to
high respiratory exchanges during pod formation. The normal yield of groundnut can
be obtained on fairly heavy soils with good tilth and favorable moisture conditions.
Groundnut is highly sensitive to soil salinity. Alkaline soils (pH>8) or soils subjected
to water logging induce iron deficiency. Highly acid soils (pH<5) or soils deficient in
2
Introduction
calcium oxide lead to Manganese or Aluminium toxicity. The productivity of groundnut
is higher in soils with pH between 6.0-6.5 (Tsigbey et al., 2003).
1.3 Climatic requirement
Crop yield is affected by many factors, primarily encompassing soil and weather
conditions, and crop management practices. Final yield of any crop is manifestation of
all environmental factors that affects growth and development during life cycle of the
crop. Groundnut is essentially a tropical plant and requires a long and warm growing
season. The favorable climate for groundnut is a well distributed rainfall of at least 500
mm during the crop growing season with abundance of sunshine and relatively warm
temperature, which is essential for maximum yield and quality of groundnut. The longer
frost period, severe drought during pegging and pod development stage and continuous
water stagnation are not suitable for potential production of the crop. It requires more
than 16 0C soil temperature for germination. Low temperatures retard germination and
growth of plants and lengthens flowering. Temperature above 35 0C inhibits the growth
of groundnut. Mean temperature for optimum growth is 30 0C and the growth ceases at
temperature less than 15 0C (Prasad et al., 2000). Moisture stress during vegetative
period delays flowering, pod setting and results in low yields. High atmospheric
humidity stimulates more flowering which results in increased peg setting. Pod
development stage is most sensitive to moisture deficit. Rainfall is the most significant
climatic factor affecting groundnut production, as 70 per cent of the crop area is found
in semi-arid tropical regions characterized by low and erratic rainfall. Low rainfall and
prolonged dry spells during the crop growth period are reported to be main reasons for
low average yields in most of the regions of Asia and Africa, including India (Reddy et
al., 2003). Groundnut crop requires an average rainfall distribution of 100, 150 and
400-500 mm during sowing, flowering and reproductive phases respectively. Low
3
Introduction
rainfall or moisture during vegetative period delays flowering, pod setting and results
in low yields (Prasad et al., 2000).
1.3.1 Heat unit requirement of the crop
The occurrence of different phenological event during growing season of any
crop and the effect of temperature on plant growth can be inferred using heat units or
growing degree days (Monteith, 1981). The concept of heat units has been applied to
correlate the phenological development of different crop to predict maturity and seed
yield (Swan et al., 1987). Phenological development of groundnut responds primarily
to heat unit accumulation. Shift in sowing dates directly influences both thermo and
photoperiod and consequently have great impact on the phasic development and
partitioning of dry matter. Quantification of these effects may help in the choice of
sowing time and match phenology of crop in specific environment to achieve higher
heat and radiation use efficiency. Time to attain a given development event is
approximately linearly related to a base and optimum temperature. Pod yield is
significantly influenced by day length. Long days promote vegetative growth at the
expense of reproductive growth and increased crop growth rate resulting in decreased
partitioning of photosynthesis to pods and decreased duration of effective pod filling
phase (Nigam et al., 1998).
1.4 Crop simulation model
Crop growth simulation models are useful tools for considering the complex
interactions between a range of factors that affect crop performance, including weather,
soil properties and management. Crop modeling began with the computer age and the
first models attempted to simulate individual processes within a plant such as light
interception in crop canopies (Loomis and Williams, 1963). Subsequently different
models were developed to simulate plant growth and development for many different
4
Introduction
crops. Individual crop models have been combined into comprehensive programs
allowing modeling of various crops in rotation. Crop simulation modeling can be
utilized for many purposes viz. as an aids in interpreting experimental results, as an
agronomic research tool and as an agronomic grower tools (Whisler et al., 1986). Crop
simulation models can also be used by policy makers to analyze the long term effects
of climate change or of management practices on natural resources, such as water, or
to gauge the impact new laws and regulations that change current management practices
have on producers. Presently crop simulation model like WOFOST, InfoCrop, RSCM,
BAMGRO, PNUTGRO, EPIC, ALAMANC, CROPSYST, APSIM, etc. are
successfully used to simulate crop growth and yield.
1.4.1 DSSAT/ CROPGRO-peanut model
One of the most widely used and researched systems is the Decision Support
System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) model. DSSAT is a result of the
International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Transfer (IBSNAT)
project supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development from 1983 to1993.
DSSAT was designed so that users can input, organize, store data on crops, soils, and
weather, can retrieve, analyze and display data, can calibrate and evaluate crop growth
models and can evaluate different management practices at a site (Jones et al., 1998).
It provides users with easy access to data bases of soil, crop, and climatic data;
individual crop models; weather generators; expert systems; strategy evaluation; and
utility programs for formatting, retrieving, and graphing information (Singh, 1989). The
model simulates the impact of the main environmental factors such as weather, soil
type, and crop management on crop growth, development and yield. Input requirements
for DSSAT include weather, soil condition, plant characteristics and crop management.
The minimum weather input requirements of the model are daily solar radiation,
5
Introduction
maximum and minimum temperatures and precipitation. Soil inputs include albedo,
evaporation limit, mineralization, photosynthesis factors, pH, drainage and runoff
coefficients. Management input information includes plant population, planting depth,
and date of planting. Latitude is required for calculating day length. The model
simulates phenological development, biomass accumulation, partitioning, leaf area
index, root, stem, leaf-growth, the water and N-balance from planting until harvest at
daily or desire time steps. Under DSSAT there are various groups of models viz.,
CERES models for cereals (barley, maize, sorghum, millet, rice and wheat); the
CROPGRO models for legumes (dry bean, soybean, peanut and chickpea models for
root crops (cassava, potato) and other crops (sugarcane, tomato, sunflower and pasture).
Hence, decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) model has
been found one of the most efficient decision support system (Hoogenboom et al.,
2004).
1.4.2 Calibration and validation of crop model
Before a crop model can provide accurate and reliable results, a researcher must
first ensure that the model has been calibrated and that it will accurately simulate what
it was designed to predict. Also, the model must be validated to the conditions for which
the researcher wants to simulate. Boote et al., 1996 defined model calibration as
adjusting the model parameters or relationships to make the model work for a site.
Calibration of a model requires several years of field experimental data from the
location or locations for the selected crop or crops under the adequate conditions. The
researcher then simulates these conditions and compares the simulated and observed
results further makes adjustments to reduce errors between the simulated and observed
results. Validation is the process of assessing whether the crop model accurately
predicting crop phenology, dry matter accumulation, leaf area, yield, yield components,
6
Introduction
and other variables through the use of field experiment independent data sets.
Validation means simply comparison between output from the model with observed
(measurement) data. An accuracy of model can be derived through some measured of
the average (mean) difference between the observed and modeled values for those
variables.
1.5. Climate change and groundnut production
The climate change is now a reality as it is evident from the observed trends in
climatic parameters and factors affecting them green house gases. Globally, the mean
temperature has increased by 0.74 °C and it is projected to increase by 1.8 to 4 °C by
2100 (IPCC, 2014). In addition to increase in temperature, the increase in frequency of
weather extremes events viz., heat waves, floods, cyclones and droughts projected to
aggravate the situation further. These parameters are bound to affect the agricultural
production. The, increase in temperature by 1 to 3 0C may cause reduction in wheat
yield in Gujarat by 8 to 31 per cent (Pandey et al., 2007). Similarly, the reduction of
production in kharif maize (47 %), paddy (32 %), groundnut (24 %) and pearl millet
(14 %), rabi maize (10 %) and summer pearl millet (8%) have been reported with
increase in temperature by 2.8 to 7.7 0C (Patel et al., 2008). The crop growth models
are helpful to assess the impact of climate change on the stability of crop production
under different management options (Hoogenboom et al., 1995). In view of this, the
present investigation has been carried out during the summer seasons of 2015 and 2016
entitled “Calibration and validation of CROPGRO–peanut (DSSAT v. 4.6) model for
summer groundnut and sensitivity analysis to climate change in middle Gujarat” with
the following objectives:
7
Introduction
1. To study the crop weather relationship of summer groundnut cultivars
2. To study the growth and yield of groundnut in relation to agrometeorological indices
3. Calibration and validation of CROPGRO-peanut model for summer groundnut
4. Sensitivity analysis of CROPGRO-peanut model for climate change studies
8
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this section, an attempt has been made to present the relevant literature
available on groundnut and other related work done in India and abroad. For simplicity,
these are presented under following heads;
2.1 Crop weather relationship of groundnut cultivars
2.2 Relation with agrometeorological indices
2.3 Crop simulation modeling
2.4 Calibration and validation of models
2.5 Sensitivity analysis of crop models
2.1 Crop weather relationship of groundnut cultivars
Any given crop variety has its own potential requirements of and/or selective
response to the factors of its environment like rainfall/soil moisture supply, day, night
or mean air temperature, BSS, soil warmth, duration of darkness, light intensity, etc.
These responses and requirements determine the growth and development of a plant in
the given environment at given location (Went, 1957).
2.1.1 Temperature
Prasad et al. (2000) reported that when groundnut crop was exposed to air and
soil temperatures above 350C during the reproductive period, it caused significant yield
losses. High air temperature had no significant effect on total flower production but
significantly reduced the proportion of flowers setting pegs (fruit-set) and hence fruit
numbers. In contrast, high soil temperature significantly reduced flower production and
the proportion of pegs forming pods. The effects of high air and soil temperature were
mostly additive and without interaction. The high air (380C/220C; mean 300C) and/or
high soil (380C/300C; mean 340C) temperatures from the start of flowering or podding
Review of Literature
to maturity significantly reduced total dry matter, pod yield and yield components of
groundnut.
Craufurd et al. (2000) conducted experiment in which eight groundnut
genotypes varying in heat tolerance were grown in controlled environments and
exposed to either high (40/28 0C) or near-optimum (30/240C) temperature from 32 days
after sowing (DAS) to maturity. There was significant variation among genotypes in
main stem, leaf number and total flower number as rates of appearance were faster at
40/28 0C than at 30/24 0C.
Karunakar et al. (2002) reported that the number of effective pegs, developed
pod number and pod dry weight were influenced by variations in air temperatures,
particularly minimum temperature and the relative humidity at Akola (M.S.) condition.
Warmer temperatures and higher relative humidity during crop growth period
favourably influenced the yield contributing characters and finally the pod yield.
Prasad et al. (2003) found that the duration of groundnut from sowing to
flowering was significantly affected by the temperature variations. The optimum
temperature for flower appearance was found to be 35 0C. High temperature delayed
pegging and podding in groundnut, indicating greater sensitivity of pegging and
podding than flowering to high temperatures.
Meena and Dahama (2004) at the Agricultural Research Station, Beechwal,
Bikaner (Rajasthan) studied the crop weather relationship of groundnut cv. MA 10
under irrigated conditions with nine dates of sowings from 15th March to 15th July at
an interval of a fortnight. Results indicated that leaf area index, dry matter accumulation
and pod yields were progressively decreased with the delay in sowing. Dry matter
production was correlated positively with mean temperature and LAI with diurnal
temperature variation. Pod yield was positively correlated with diurnal temperature
10
variation from sowing to initiation of flowering and initiation of flowering to
physiological maturity. It was significantly and positively correlated with maximum
temperature, diurnal temperature variation, bright sunshine hours, evaporation rate,
heat units, photo thermal units and heat use efficiency.
Prasad et al. (2006) conducted an experiment to study the influence of soil
temperature on seedling emergence and early growth of six peanut cultivars at eight
sowing dates during January 2001 and May 2002 at Florida in temperature-gradient
greenhouses. They reported that each sowing date, two additional temperature
treatments (ambient and ambient + 4.5 0C air temperature) were evaluated by sowing
on either end of each greenhouse and applying differential heating. Mean soil
temperature from sowing to final emergence in different treatments ranged from 15 to
32 0C. They found that the sowing date, temperature treatment and cultivar had
significant effect on seedling emergence and development.
Subrahmaniyan et al. (2006) conducted a field experiment to study the crop-
weather relationship in polyethylene film mulched groundnut. The statistics revealed
soil temperatures at 10 cm depth was found ineffective to groundnut production in the
autumn, while they were advantageous in winter. In the second experiment, a lower soil
temperature up to 20 cm depth resulted favorable for autumn groundnut, while for the
winter crop a better production was obtained with higher soil temperatures in the first
10 cm of depth.
Pandey et al. (2007) conducted field experiment for five years (1997-98 to
2001-2002) at AAU, Anand. Flowering and pod development phases of mustard were
found to be the most sensitive to weather parameters. Higher sunshine hours, higher
maximum temperature and lower minimum temperature during flowering and pod
development stages of the crop were found to be favourable for mustard crop.
11
Temperature range was found to explain the highest variation (92%) in the seed yield
of mustard.
Bannayan et al. (2009) studied the interactive effects of elevated CO2 and
above optimum temperature on growth, development and yield of two peanut (Arachis
hypogaea L.) cultivars, Pronto and Georgia Green. Plants were exposed to day/night
air temperatures of 33/21, 35.5/23.5 (+2.5 0C), and 38/26 0C (+5 0C) along with CO2
treatments of 400 and 700 μmol CO2 mol-1 air. They reported that elevated CO2 alone
resulted in a significant increase in total biomass at final harvest across all temperatures
(P < 0.01), but decreased final seed yield (P < 0.05) except for Georgia Green at (+5
0
C). From the results they concluded that final seed yield response to CO2 depends on
the sensitivity of individual cultivars to temperature, especially during the reproductive
development stage.
Singh et al. (2009) conducted a field experiment during 2005 at Haryana
Agricultural University, Hisar. They reported that the temperature had a strong
influence on the germination and seed vigour of different chickpea cultivars,
germination was below 90 per cent at 350C temperature in HC-3, HK-1, HC-1, H-208,
Gora Hisari and H Gaurav cultivars. At 250C temperature, germination rate index was
above 13.0 in most of the cultivars. Seed vigor (SG1) was maximum around 250C.
2.1.2 Radiation
Radiant energy plays an important role not only in plant growth and
development processes through photosynthesis and the thermal effects but also
determines the climate near the ground depending upon the surface. The net radiation,
which is balance of net short wave and net long wave radiation, is the fundamental
source of energy, which is responsible for most of the physiological processes taking
12
place in the environment, within the crop canopy and surrounding the crop cultivated
area (Arya, 1977; Oke, 1987).
Andre and Viswnathan (1983) studied the radiation balance of soybean
growth in Brazil. They found that the mean daily albedo values for the vegetative
surface were between 0.12 to 0.26 and were inversely related to the vegetative height.
Bhatia et al. (1997) reported that the initiation of flowering and the start of the
pod development stages were most susceptible to variation in the photoperiod. In early
maturity genotype under the long photoperiod, although flowering occurred on normal
date, pod development did not and pods did not reach R6 (beginning of seed growth)
and R7 (physiological maturity) stages.
Antony et al. (2003) conducted an experiment at Bhubaneswar (Orissa) to
investigate the effect of sowing dates on phenology, heat use efficiency (HUE) and
radiation use efficiency (RUE) in greengram cv. K-56. Greengram took 58 and 55 days
and 68 and 60 days to attain physiological maturity during 1999 and 2000, respectively.
As the sowing date was delayed, the growth occurred under higher temperatures with
reduction in phenophase duration. Higher growing degree days were observed in early
sown crop compared to late sown crop (1382 during 1999 and 1290 during 2000). The
crop sown in March experienced higher temperature at the time of physiological
maturity as it coincided with the last week of April and second week of May. The RUE
values varied between 0.09 and 0.24 gMJ-1.
Awal and Ikeda (2003) conducted a field experiment at the research farm of
the Faculty of Agriculture, Niigata University, Japan. The effect of soil temperature on
radiation use efficiency (RUE) of peanut grown with three soil temperatures (ambient,
reduced and elevated with 23.5, 21.7 and 25.7 0C, respectively). They reported that the
peanut grown under elevated soil temperature converted significantly more of the
13
absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) into dry matter accounting for the
higher carbon exchange rate (CER) due to the synthesis of more chlorophyll pigments
(Chl a and b) at early growth stages. However, irrespective of treatments and years, the
RUE and soil temperature were positively correlated (r2 = 0.99; P < 0.01). From the
results they concluded that elevating the soil temperature is a useful method of
compensating for low air temperatures, allowing more efficient capture of resources
especially in cool-temperate regions.
Singh et al. (2003) reported that the phenological stage in wheat took more days
under shade stress due to low radiation and thermal regimes in the crop canopies. The
difference in cumulative heat units increased with the increase in the shade level in the
advanced phenophases during crop season. The radiation use efficiency (RUE)
increased from crown root initiation till anthesis and then decreased slightly upto
drought stage. The highest RUE was recorded in maximum shade levels due to more
reduction in radiation consumed by the crops. The thermal use efficiency (TUE) in the
wheat was lowest at anthesis and highest at maturity followed by jointing and dough
stage.
Basu et al. (2013) conducted field experiment at B.C.K.V Research Farm,
Nadia, during pre-kharif season to study the effect of photosynthetically active radiation
(PAR) on the leaf area index (LAI) and total dry matter (TDM) accumulation pattern
in groundnut. Two years experiment was conducted on five groundnut varieties (TG-
51, ICGS-44, TAG-44, TMV-2 and AK-12-24) sown on three dates (20th January, 5th
February and 20th February) revealed that the LAI and total dry matter accumulation
varied with dates of sowing and cultivar. The variation due to variety and dates of
sowing was found significant. Intercepted PAR (IPAR) significantly affected the LAI
upto 65 DAE.
14
2.1.3 Rainfall
Joshi and Kabaria (1972) studied the effect of rainfall on phenology of
groundnut at Amreli (Gujarat) and found that the rainfall from full-pegging to pod-
development stage (51-80 days) was significantly correlated with the yield.
Subbaiah et al. (1974) observed that the pod yield of groundnut and rainfall
received during pod formation to maturity were positively correlated in a rainfed crop
grown at semi-arid region of Andhra Pradesh in India.
Murthy and Rao (1986) at Anantpur (A. P.) reported that early sowing in the
season provided favourable weather conditions for proper growth and yield of
groundnut. Delay in sowing by one week from 17th July to 24th July resulted in a linear
decrease in pod yield of groundnut.
Kachroo (1987) carried out a study at Ludhiana and found that flower initiation,
75 per cent flowering and pegging periods of groundnut were not influenced by the pre
and post monsoon conditions.
Singh and Singh (1994) studied the effect of rainfall distribution on the yield
of groundnut during its growth period at Rajkot, Gujarat. They observed that depending
upon the rainfall and its distribution, groundnut yield was as low as 123 kg ha-1 and as
high as 1278 kg ha-1 in Rajkot district. They also found that the partial regression
coefficients of rainfall after 1-30 days, 51-60 days and 81-90 days of sowing the crop
were found significant.
Sahu et al. (1994) reported that the effectiveness of rainfall in groundnut
production depends mainly on commencement of sowing rains and amount and
distribution of rainfall during the season.
Wright et al. (1999) reported that the water deficits occurring during the
flowering to the start of pod growth phase significantly reduced pod yields (range 17-
15
25 %) relative to the well watered control plots for two Spanish and two Virginia
cultivars at south-east Queensland, Australia.
Gadgil (2000) observed that the variation in groundnut yield at Anantapur
district (A. P.) arises to a large extent from the variation in the total rainfall during the
growing season. It was observed that seasonal rainfall up to 50 cm is required to sustain
a successful groundnut crop in that region.
Sahu et al. (2000) studied the effect of rainfall pattern on groundnut
productivity using rainfall for 32 years (1968-1999) at Junagadh. They concluded that
in drought years the total rainfall had significant effect on yield, where as in wet years
only weekly rainfall variation had shown significant effect on pod yield of groundnut.
Patel and Vaishnav (2003) used different statistical approaches to study the
effect of rainfall on groundnut yield in dry farming areas of Gujarat involving seasonal
rainfall, monthly, standard weekly, crop physiological stage wise total, shorter interval
total rainfall at critical stages and different categories of rainy days in crop
physiological stages as independent variables. They concluded that the rainfall during
pegging stage (35-50 DAS) had significant influence on yield. Further split into smaller
periods, showed that rainfall during a period of 7 days consisting 36 to 42 and 43 to 49
days after sowing was significantly associated with yield.
Kulkarni et al. (2004) studied the effect of rainfall on groundnut using 40 years
crop yield-rainfall data (1961-2000) at Anantapur. They reported that the non-
parametric approach based on the two way classification duly accounts for the
combined effect of the rainfall pattern on the levels of crop yields and also enables to
quantify the yield response corresponding to the different rainfall patterns that are likely
to occur during the crop season. They also reported that the cluster analysis precisely
16
identifies the different rainfall patterns, which are 'likely' to occur during the crop
season.
Patel et al. (2010) reported that the groundnut crop sown at the onset of
monsoon performed better and gave 21.4 per cent higher pod yield than late sown crop.
They concluded that at the onset of monsoon, mean temperature during pod
development phase showed significant positive correlation with pod yield.
2.1.4 Soil moisture
Water being one of the most important factors influencing crop production, it’s
optimum availability particularly under limited water condition greatly influence the
crop performance.
Hemalatha et al. (2006) conducted a field trial on groundnut at Hyderabad.
They observed that the fully irrigated control treatment produced maximum pod yield.
Moisture stress at various crop growth periods caused significant reduction (16.4 to
20.6 %) in pod yield as compared to control. Pod yield reduction due to moisture stress
at flowering and pegging period was 20.6 % with yield sensitivity coefficient of 1.7.
The relative sensitivity of groundnut to water deficit was found to be the highest in
flowering and pegging period, moderate in pod initiation and least in pod filling period.
The field experiment was conducted by Dutta and Mondal (2006) at Mohanpur
(West Bengal) to study the response of summer groundnut to moisture stress. They
noted that the moisture stress at vegetative stage recorded significantly higher yield
attributes, yield and oil content than that at flowering stage.
Thiyagarajan et al. (2010) reported that pre-flowering phase of groundnut crop
was less sensitive to moisture stress than the flowering phase and greater synchrony of
pod set in moderately stressed plants during the pre-flowering phase and resulted in
greater proportion of mature pods at harvest.
17
Vaghasia et al. (2010) conducted a field experiment at Junagadh to study the
effect of soil moisture stress at various growth stages on yield of summer groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea L.) for six genotypes. They reported that stress during flowering
stage (25-47 days after sowing) and pod development stage (50-72 days after sowing)
resulted in 18.45 and 30.63 per cent reduction in pod yield. From the results they
concluded that the maximum water use efficiency (WUE) was achieved under water
stress imposed at flowering stage.
A field experiment was carried out at ANGRAU, Hyderabad to study the effect
of moisture stress on yield and yield related parameters in sunflower by Geetha et al.
(2011). Drought imposed at flower bud initiation stage caused reduction in total dry
matter (21 %) and capitulum diameter (32 %) as compared to no stress treatment. They
also reported that water stress resulted in 28 % reduction in seed yield compared to
control (no stress treatment).
Balakrishnan and Naterajaratnam (1990) studied the response of pigeonpea
cultivars to different sowing environments at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore. They selected six pigeonpea cultivars, three early maturing (cv. CO-5,
CORG-5, and UPAS-120) and three late maturing (cv. CORG-11, PLS-361-1 and SA-
1) and sown the crop in three different seasons on 21st February, 21st June and 21st
September. They observed that the temperature decreased and relative humidity
increased during later sowing. The first sowing data gave the greatest plant height,
branches and leaf numbers in all cultivars. The yield superiority of late maturing
cultivars decreased with later sowing.
18
Mo et al. (1991) showed that the main factors affecting yield of soybean were
the difference between day and night temperature, average RH and precipitation from
the early flowering to maturity.
Karunakar et al. (2002) reported that the number of effective pegs, developed
pod number and pod dry weight were influenced by variations in atmospheric
temperatures, particularly minimum temperature and the relative humidity at Akola
(M.S.) condition. Warmer temperatures and higher relative humidity during crop
growth period favourably influenced the yield contributing characters and finally the
pod yield.
Rani and Reddy (2008) observed that weather variables during various
phenophase of soybean influenced growth, yield and yield attributes, a regression
model was developed which indicated that increase in afternoon relative humidity
(51.5- 84.0 % and 47.4- 85.7 % ) during pod set and seed fill phases respectively,
morning relative humidity in the range of 71.6- 93.5 % at seed fill phase along with soil
moisture in the range of 12.5- 40.2 % and 11.4- 37.6 %, respectively in the 15 and 30
cm soil depth accounted for 65 % variation in soybean seed yield.
2.2 Relation to agrometeorological indices
Hundal and Kingra (2000) formulated phenophasic models for soybean based
on growing degree days and photothermal units in field studies conducted over four
crop seasons at PAU, Ludhiana. Soybean cv. PK-414 attained physiological maturity
in 131 to 137 days. From emergence to maturity, the crop required GDD of 2291 to
2450 0C days with CV of 2.7 per cent and PTU of 29,924 to 32,117 0C day hours with
CV of 3.1 per cent.
Agrawal et al. (2001) studied the photo thermal effect on growth and
development of chickpea in field experiment Jabalpur (M.P.). The crop was planted at
19
different dates. Significant variation in phenology particularly in days taken to
flowering was recorded when 3 varieties were sown on different dates. Growth and
yield were reduced with delay in planting. Growing degree day, heliothermal and
photothermal units required to reach different phases greatly varied with planting time.
Heat use efficiency was also affected due to planting dates. Suboptimal photothermal
regime encountered by late planted crop was mainly responsible for reduction in
productivity.
Meena and Dahama (2004) studied the relevance of thermal units with respect
to sowing time and pod yield prediction of irrigated groundnut. Pod yield and biomass
production were highest for the 15th March and 1st April sowing dates followed by a
progressive decrease in later dates of sowing. The pod yield was positively correlated
with heat use efficiency (HUE), heliothermal units (HTU) and photothermal units
(PTU) from flower initiation to maturity phenophase.
Gouri et al. (2005) conducted the field experiment during rabi season of 1997.
they reported that the duration taken for vegetative, reproductive and pod filling phases
under different sowings environment varied between 32-45, 20-36 and 52-68 days,
respectively, but in terms of growing degree days they remained more or less constant
at 488 ± 37, 304 ± 10 and 778 ± 53 0C days, respectively. They reported that the crop
matured on accumulating GDD 1570 ± 16 0C days regardless of sowing date and year.
Singh et al. (2007) conducted the field experiment during kharif seasons of
2004 and 2005 to study the influence of different environments created through
different sowing time on soybean cultivars at Hisar. They observed that the early sown
crop (1st week of June) accumulated higher GDD, HTU and resulted in maximum RUE
and HUE. Among the cultivars highest RUE was found in PK-416 cultivar due to more
dry matter production and LAI.
20
Sahu et al. (2007) observed that the yield attributes of chickpea were
significantly influenced by different dates of sowing. The optimum thermal unit
requirements were GDD 18840C days, HTU 15350C days, and PTU 209440C days. The
identified time of sowing for chickpea was from 15th to 25th Oct for optimal thermal
regime under south Saurashtra Agro climatic Zone.
Gill et al. (2007) conducted an experiment at PAU, Ludhiana (Punjab) during
summer 2007 to study the effect of sowing dates on the phenology and thermal
requirement of mungbean genotypes. Early sown crop (10th July) consumed more
number of GDD, HTU and PTU to attain physiological maturity as compared to crop
sown on 20th and 30th July, which were found at par with each other, while crop sown
on 10th August resulted is low yield. The thermal units required to attain a given
phenological stage increased as sowing was delayed in all the cultivars. Among
mungbean genotypes (viz. SML 668, ML 818, PAU 911 and ML 1299), ML 1299
resulted in higher HUE for both, dry matter and seed yield as compared to other
genotypes under study. Genotype ML 1299 gave maximum grain yield (1117 kg ha-1)
which was significantly higher than SML 668 and ML 818, but remained at par with
PAU 911. A linear relationship obtained between occurrence of different phenophases
and HTU and PTU can be used to predict mungbean phenology, DMA and seed yield.
Parvender and Pal (2007) conducted an experiment to predict the phenology
of summer greengram using thermal indices under varying irrigation schedules at Hisar
(Haryana). Crop irrigated twice (20 and 45 DAS) consumed more number of growing
degree days (GDD), heliothermal units (HTU) and photothermal units (PTU) to attain
physiological maturity compared to crop irrigated once either at 20 or 45 DAS. Cultivar
MH-85-111 resulted in higher heat use efficiency for both dry matter and seed yield
compared to the other genotypes. A linear relationship obtained between occurrence of
21
different phenophases and HTU and PTU can be used to predict mungbean phenology,
dry matter accumulation and seed yield.
Tripathi et al. (2009) reported that the chickpea crop sown on Nov 05 produced
significantly higher growth due to fulfillment of optimum thermal requirement for
various plant processes. Delay in sowing reduced the crop duration by 20 days over
sowing done on Oct 20. Heliothermal unit of 16751 0C days and photo thermal unit
22267 0C days from sowing to maturity produced the higher yield of chickpea under
agroclimatic conditions of eastern Utter Pradesh.
Canavar and Kaynak (2010) investigated the effect of different planting dates,
growing degree days (GDD) and daily sunshine duration on three peanut cultivars
(Gazipasa, Florispan, and NC-7) and a local cultivar at four different planting dates in
Turkey during 2004 and 2005. They reported that the planting date affected emergence,
beginning of flowering, beginning gynophore formation, primary branch number,
primary branch length, days to maturity and pod yield. From the results they concluded
that the early planting, ranging from May 5th to 20th, provided the essential 1450 and
1600 0C days GDD and 893 to 978 sunshine hours during reproductive stage and
revealed May 20th as the best planting date for pod yield.
Lavand (2012) laid out the field experiment to study the crop weather
relationship in summer greengram at JAU, Junagadh (Gujarat) during the summer
season of 2011 with four dates of sowing viz., 5th February, 15th February, 25th
February and 5th March and four varieties viz., K-851, GM-2, GM-3 and GM-4. He
observed that the optimum requirement of GDD, HTU and PTU for higher yields of
summer greengram was 1568.2 (°C days), 15658.4 (°C days) and 19325.9 (°C days)
respectively.
22
Singh et al. (2012) conducted field experiment during rabi season of 2006 - 07
and 2007-08 at Faizabad (U.P.) with three chickpea cultivars viz., Awarodhi, Radhey
and Uday grown under three dates of sowing viz., 31th October, 10th November and 20th
November. Result revealed that phasic duration and thermal units from sowing to
maturity decreased with successive delay in sowing. The accumulated thermal units
during the entire growing period of the crop decreased from 21370°C days under
October 31 sowing to 17850 °C days under late sowing (sowing delayed by 20 days).
2.3 Crop simulation modeling
Akula (2003) validated WTGROWS and InfoCrop model using relevant field
experimentation data collected for two years at Anand (Gujarat) India for wheat cv.
GW-496. Results showed that mean measured and WTGROWS simulated grain yield
were 4608±620 and 4537±874 kg ha-1 respectively and corresponding to the same
measured yield, simulated by InfoCrop were 4296±918 kg ha-1. The correlation
coefficient between measured and simulated yields by each of the two models was
nearly indicated in WTGROWS (r=0.95) and InfoCrop (0.96).
Rai and Kushwaha (2005) reported that the simulated and observed values for
number of days to panicle initiation and 50% flowering coincided in case of rice cultivar
under Pantnagar, Uttaranchal, whereas the estimated value for number of days to
maturity was higher than the simulated value. A high correlation between the observed
and simulated value for yield and yield components including number of panicles,
number of grains per panicle and 1000 grain weight was recorded, indicating the
suitability of the CERES-Rice model in simulating the development, yield and yield
components of upland rice.
Aggarwal et al. (2006) reported that the InfoCrop model is well calibrated and
validated for several annual crops such as, groundnut, soybean, chickpea, mustard,
23
wheat, rice, maize, sorghum, potato, cotton and coconut and also a perennial plantation.
In all crop phenology, LAI and yield attributing characters were very closely matched
with observed and simulated value. Majority of simulations were within ± 15 percent
boundary of 1:1 line.
Chauhan et al. (2006) studied the utility of Agricultural Production Systems
Simulator (APSIM) peanut model as a tool to assess the yield potential and quality
constraints of peanut in three targeted peanut production regions (Aiyura, Bubia and
Ramusugar) in Papua, New Guinea. They reported that the model predicted pod yield
satisfactorily for Bubia and Ramusugar sites, but poorly at the Aiyura site, due to
unknown site specific constraints. From the study they concluded that APSIM peanut
model can be used as a tool to assess the production potential of peanuts at various
planting times in the target environments.
CERES-wheat model was calibrated and validated with field experimental data
generated during 2004-05 and 2005-06 for wheat (cv. GW-496) at Anand, Gujarat,
India by Pandey et al. (2007). Grain yield as simulated by the CERES-wheat model
under higher temperature regimes showed a gradual decrease in yield, while lowering
the temperatures increased the yield. The impact of maximum temperature was more
than that of minimum temperature.
Bellow et al. (2007) investigated using temperature, precipitation and solar
radiation outputs from a Dynamically-Downscaled Global Climate Circulation Model
to predict peanut yields in south eastern USA. From the results they reported that the
application of regional spectral climate model (RSCM) forecasts may have the greatest
immediate potential for simulating physiological processes that are most sensitive to
temperature and relatively insensitive to rainfall.
24
Wajid et al. (2007) worked on a simple mechanistic growth model,
WHEATGROW to simulate the growth, development and grain yield of wheat as
affected by sowing dates (10th Nov. 25th Nov. and 10th Dec.) under semi-arid conditions
of Pakistan. Simulated grain yield output was 60% in 10th November, 54% in 25th
November, 38% in 10th December and total dry matter accumulation was 73% higher
in 10th November, 36% in 25th November, 12% in 10th December. Comparison of
simulated and measured quantities indicated satisfactory performance of the model with
in reference to LAI, TDM and grain yield.
Karunaratne et al. (2008) described BAMGRO model and explained that it
integrates data from contrasting landraces and locations in Africa and UK. They also
reported that the model is based on the established CROPGRO model taking into
account some features of previous Bambara groundnut models, BAMnut and BamGro.
These models predict the effect of drought, heat and cold stress independently and
collectively on the growth, development and yield of Bambara groundnut landraces. In
addition, BAMGRO estimates the effects of photoperiod on growth and development.
Whilst its predecessors modelled Bambara groundnut as a species, BAMGRO identifies
landrace responses to major abiotic stresses.
Reddy et al. (2008) tested the WOFOST and CERES models for phenology and
grain yield of rice, CERES model predicted the physiology maturity with an error of -
5.7 % and 7.8 % during 2004 and 2005, respectively. Whereas grain yield was predicted
with an error of 4.1 % during 2005, CERES model predicted flowering, maturity and
yield of MTU 1010 with an error of 3.6%, -4.7%, respectively. During 2006, at
Rajendranagar, in JGL 1798, CERES model predicted the yield of 3.4% and -3.4%
compared to WOFOST, which predicted the grain yield with an error 1.9 % and -1.8%,
for 31 July and 11 August plantings.
25
Mishra et al. (2013) studied WOFOST crop growth simulation model at Anand.
Result revealed that mean observed days to anthesis were 57.9 ± 2.5, 61.1± 2.1and 59.5
± 1.6 during 2009-10, 2010-11 and pooled data, while simulated days to anthesis were
60.3 ± 3.9, 62.8 ± 2.0 and 61.6 ± 2.2, respectively. The value of RMSE for simulated
maximum LAI were 0.11, 0.08 and 0.08 for 2009-10, 2010-11 and for pooled data
respectively. The observed mean yields were 3406 ± 223, 3757 ± 684 and 3581 ± 430
kg ha-1during 2009-10, 2010-11 and for pooled analysis while, respective simulated
mean yields were 3496 ± 435, 4061 ± 684 and 3778 ± 494 kg ha-1. Likewise, measured
above ground production were 8349 ± 752, 8495 ± 953 and 8422 ± 796 kg ha-1during
2009-10, 2010-11 and pooled data, while corresponding simulated biomass were 8787
± 698, 8910 ± 733 and 8889 ± 653 ha-1 respectively.
Lakra and Nareshkumar (2015) reported that the InfoCrop model simulated
phenology of soybean satisfactorily at I.A.R.I., New Delhi. The difference between
simulated and observed days to maturity was less than 5 days. The observed yield of
soybean under rainfed and irrigated condition was 1778 and 1926 kg ha-1 while that the
model simulated yield 1809 and 1884 kg ha-1 respectively. The observed TDM values
were 5206 and 5742 kg ha-1 and simulated TDM were 5307 and 6184 kg ha-1 under
rainfed and irrigated condition respectively.
Boote et al. (1988), (1989) were the first report on crop growth simulation
model for groundnut as “PNUTGRO” reported the research applications of
‘PNUTGRO’ model for simulating the further effects of maturity traits, partitioning of
dry matter, pod growth, pest effects and crop growth processes to predict the yield.
Management applications included the prediction of growth and yield responses to
planting dates, row spacing and irrigation. They found that higher temperatures caused
26
‘PNUTGRO’ model to simulate earlier maturity, shorter pod fill, low yield and shelling
percentage.
Hook (1994) used three crop growth and water use models, ‘CERES’ Maize,
‘SOYGRO’ and ‘PNUTGRO’ to compare the potential (no water stress) and the lowest
(no irrigation) yield for maize, soybean and groundnut, in Georgia, USA. The simulated
yield loses averaged 75 per cent for soybean and 64 per cent for groundnut.
Hoogenboom (2000) observed a significant impact of weather and management
factors on crop growth and development by the crop simulation models. He suggested
that the DSSAT model can be used to make appropriate management decisions and to
provide farmers with alternate options for their farming system.
Pandey et al. (2001) compared the phenology and yield simulated by
‘CROPGRO’ model and that observed in the field experiment for groundnut crop
grown in kharif seasons of 1997-2000 at Anand. The results revealed that the observed
phenological dates were closely associated with the simulated ones. The decrease in
pod yield with delayed sowing as observed in experiment was well depicted by the
model. However, under high rainfall situations, the model simulated higher pod and
haulm yield for both the varieties and these were not in agreement with the observed
yields. Thus the model could be used to predict the yield accurately under normal
rainfall and different management conditions.
Gilbert et al. (2002) evaluated PNUTGRO model v 1.02 at 15 sites in two
Florida counties during 1990 and 1991 cropping seasons. They reported that the
accuracy of PNUTGRO simulations was varied with year and location. Sites where
peanut was grown in rotations following Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum, Levy County,
1990) had low disease pressure, high pod yields (5260 kg ha-1) and the best model fit
(PNUTGRO simulations were within 9% of observed yield data). Sites where peanut
27
followed other row crops often showed high infestation levels of root knot nematode or
stem rot (Jackson County, 1991) resulted in reduced pod yields (3260 kg ha-1) and
poorer model fit (PNUTGRO simulations were 44% above observed yields). They
concluded that PNUTGRO correctly predicted relative yield decreases due to drought.
Naab et al. (2004) conducted field experiments during 1997 and 1998 at Ghana
to evaluate the CROPGRO peanut model for its ability to simulate growth, yield, and
soil water balance of peanut crop. Two peanut cultivars, Chinese which matures in 90
days, and F-Mix which matures in 120 days were grown rainfed at three dates of sowing
between May and August in 1997 and at four dates in 1998. They found that simulated
yield losses caused by water deficits were small (averaging 5–10%) for early sowing
dates and increased with later sowing dates (20 and 70% for third and fourth sowings).
Simulated yields were reduced by 10 to 20 per cent due to water deficit for the two
earlier (normal) dates, but more for the later sowing dates. They concluded that the
CROPGRO peanut model can be successfully used to quantify the yield potential and
yield gaps associated with yield reducing stresses and crop management for the region.
Bhatia et al. (2005) estimated the potential yield and water balance of
groundnut for 20 locations representing different regions across India using
‘CROPGRO’ model. The average simulated rainfed potential yield across different
states of India ranged from 1200 to 3490 kg ha-1 respectively.
Adamou et al. (2005) investigated the utility of CROPGRO-peanut model to
simulate growth and yield as affected by late leaf spot in early and late maturing peanut
cultivars grown at different sowing dates under rainfed conditions in northern Benin.
Peanut cultivars TS 32-1 and 69-101 were sown on three dates between May and
August during 1998 and 1999. They reported that the long duration cultivar 69-101
produced greater yield than the short duration cultivar TS 32-1, concluding that early
28
sowing and long duration cultivars result in relatively better yields and the mechanistic
CROPGRO-peanut model can be used to simulate the influence of foliar diseases (leaf
spot) on growth and dry matter production for both short and long duration cultivars
under different sowing dates.
2.4 Calibration and validation of models
Calibration means adjustment of some parameters or coefficients in functional
relationship. Before any model can be used with confidence, adequate validation or
assessment of the magnitude of the errors that may result from their use should be
carried out. Model validation, in its simplest form, is a comparison between simulated
and observed values.
Piper et al. (1998) compared the phenology simulation by SOYGRO model
with that by CROPGRO for prediction of the flowering and maturity date. Based on the
root mean square error (RMSE) criterion between predicted and observed dates,
SOYGRO and CROPGRO predicted flowering equally well.
Mall et al. (1998) used CROPGRO-soybean model to predict the phenology
and yield of soybean. Model predicted satisfactory the trends of days to flowering,
maturity and seed yield. The deviation of simulated results were within ± 15 % of the
measurements.
Kaur and Hundal (1999) calibrated and validated the DSSAT model to predict
groundnut growth and yield in Punjab. They reported that the simulated phenological
events showed deviations of -3 to +3 days for flowering, -3 to +2 days for pegging and
-4 to +2 days for physiological maturity of the crop. The model estimated the LAI to
be within 95–108% (mean 101.5%) and shelling percentage to be within 93–108%
(mean 100.5%) of the actual values. The model predicted the pod yields from 89 to
29
111% (mean 100%) and seed yield from 90 to 110% (mean 100%) of the observed
yields.
Rao et al. (2000) used PNUTGRO model to suggest the optimum sowing
window for rain-fed groundnut in the Anantpur region. The variation in the model yield
had shown that the broad sowing window of 22 June –17 August presently used by the
farmers minimizes the risk of failure. Within this broad window, sowing after mid-July
enhanced the yields considerably.
Baston et al. (2001) reported that simulation by CROPGRO model for cowpea
crop the deviation between the simulated and observed values was high which was
attributed to the fall in reproductive growth rate as well as translocation of
photosynthates under high temperatures.
Robertson et al. (2002) tested the generic legume model as it applies to 4
species: chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), peanut
(Arachis hypogaea L.), and lucerne (Medicago sativa L.). The model is an attempt to
simulate crop growth and development with satisfactory comprehensiveness, without
the necessity of defining a large number of parameters. A generic approach was adopted
in recognition of the common underlying physiology and simulation approaches for
many legume species. Simulation of grain yield explained 77, 81, and 70% of the
variance (RMSD = 31, 98, and 46 g/m2) for mungbean (n = 40, observed mean = 123
g/m2), peanut (n = 30, 421 g/m2), and chickpea (n = 31, 196 g/m2), respectively.
Biomass at maturity was simulated less accurately, explaining 64, 76, and 71% of the
variance (RMSD= 134, 236, and 125 g/m2) for mungbean, peanut, and chickpea,
respectively. RMSD for biomass in lucerne (n = 24) was 85 g/m2 with an R2 of 0.55.
Simulation accuracy is similar to that achieved by single-crop models and suggests that
30
the generic approach offers promise for simulating diverse legume species without loss
of accuracy or physiological vigour.
Mavromatis et al. (2002) reported that CROPGRO-PEANUT when calibrated
with seven on station trails and validated with twenty one on farm trails in North
Florida, yield was under predicted three times (range -20 to -5%) and over predicted
four out of seven times (range +1 to +23%) with an average absolute error of 13 per
cent.
CERES-Rice version 3.5 and CROPGRO-chickpea crop growth simulation
model used to explore the possibility of second crop in agro climatic condition of the
plateau region of Chhattisgarh state. Management combinations simulated were 8
planting dates for rice cultivar IR-36 and chickpea cultivars JG-74 and K-850
developed elsewhere used to running the crop simulation model by Singh et al. (2005)
showed that simulated yield for rice sown on 15 May and 22 May were higher for
chickpea, crop model resulted in higher yield for both the cultivars sown on 4 October
under irrigation scenario with two irrigation while simulated grain yield was higher for
cv. JG-74. Irrespective of sowing dates and irrigation treatments.
Mukhesh (2008) reported that the PNUTGRO model under predicted days to
pod and seed growth and reasonable agreement between the simulated and observed
values for days to anthesis, harvest index, shelling percentage and pod yield of
groundnut crop.
Dugan et al. (2011) validated DSSAT (CROPGRO Peanut) model using data
from field experiments in three farming zones of Ghana. The model was evaluated for
its performance by simulating the response of two groundnut varieties (Kpedevi, short
duration and Goronga, long duration) to planting dates (29/04/02 and 09/09/02) and
planting densities (9 and 17 plants m-2). The model predicted the days to 50 per cent
31
emergence, flowering, pegging and pod formation within ± 5 days of the observed
values. Changes in leaf area index (LAI) and total dry matter were significantly
correlated with observed values (R2 = 0.81, and 0.97, respectively, for Kpedevi) and
(R2 = 0.86 and 0.98, respectively, for Goronga). Also, the model accurately simulated
the differences in crop growth, yields at final harvest, densities and seasons. They
concluded that under biotic stress-free situations, the model can be used to predict
groundnut growth and yields of Goronga and Kpedevi as influenced by planting date
and planting density.
Guled et al. (2012) conducted the field experiment during the kharif seasons of
2009 and 2010 to evaluate the CROPGRO-Peanut model for phenological and yield
attributes of three groundnut cultivars V1 – M 335 , V2 – GG-20 and V3 –GG 5 sown
under three environments. Model output showed that the simulated values of
phenology, growth parameters and pod yield of the groundnut cultivars were close to
the corresponding observed values.
Kumar et al. (2012) used the CERES wheat and CROPGRO urd model to
simulated growth and yield in sequential run. They revealed that the validated model
can be further used for applications such as sequential study. The effect of one crop on
soil, water, and nutrient status are carried over to the next crop in the sequence or
rotation. These sequences can be efficiently studied by the sequence analysis program
of DSSAT.
Parmar et al. (2013) calibrated and validated the DSSAT model for kharif
groundnut (cv. GG-2 and GG-20) using past experimental data (2007 to 2009) of Dry
Farming Research station, J.A.U., Targhadia, Rajkot, Gujarat with two date of sowing
(D1: Onset of monsoon 1st July, D2: after 15 days of D1 15th July). The yield and yield
attributes, phenological stages, harvest index, shelling percentage as simulated by
32
model were compared with the observed data. The results revealed that the model
underestimated the LAI and haulm yield for both the cultivars and overestimated rest
of the parameters. The average error percent of pod yield for cv. GG-2 was 2.2% and
for cv. GG-20 it was 1.6%.
Patil and Patel (2017) calibrated and validated the CROPGRO model for
chickpea using past field experimental data of two consecutive rabi seasons 2014-15
and 2015-16 at Anand, Gujarat. The results revealed that the higher R2 (0.97) was
obtained between measured and simulated for days to anthesis, with percent error (PE)
(8.08 %) and D-index 0.91. The PE between measured and observed for all the
parameters were found below ±10 % error.
2.5 Sensitivity analysis of CROPGRO-peanut model for climate change
studies.
Sensitivity means rate of change in output variable per unit change in input
variable or parameter. Sensitivity study of crop simulation modeling involves exploring
the behaviour of the model for different values of parameters. Especially since
parameter calibration is largely a black art, sensitivity analysis allows us to see where
we should concentrate our calibration and modelling efforts, i.e., where the model is
most sensitive.
Kaur and Hundal (2006) observed that with an increase in temperature up to
1 0C the yield of rice, wheat, and groundnut decreased by 3, 10, and 4 % respectively.
However, some increase in temperature was found favourable for yield of gram and
soybean. An increase in solar radiation by 5 % increased the yield of rice, wheat,
groundnut, gram and soybean by 6, 3, 8, 4 and 2 % respectively. The interaction effect
of increasing minimum temperature but decreasing maximum temperature revealed that
the growth and yield of crops was adversely affected by increasing minimum
33
temperatures while, the decreasing maximum temperatures were able to partially
counteract the adverse effect only up to a certain limit. When the mean temperature
increased by 1 0C and solar radiation decreased by 5 % from normal, the grain yield of
wheat, rice, groundnut and soybean decreased by 14, 9, 7 and 0.5 % respectively from
normal.
Ramaraja et al. (2010) used CROPGRO-peanut model to assess the impact of
climate change on agriculture over Tamil Nadu. They reported that there was no
definite trend of impact of predicted temperature on groundnut yield. The level of CO2
enrichment had increased the yield compared to normal level of CO2 (330 ppm).
Concluding that, there was existence of seasonal difference for CO2 enrichment for
groundnut.
Shamim et al. (2010) reported that the sensitivity analysis of CERES-Rice
model with respect to different scenarios of duration of photoperiods, solar radiation,
CO2 concentration, maximum and minimum temperatures were carried out. The
simulated grain yield increased linearly with incremental unit increase in day length,
solar radiation, reduction of maximum temperature and vice versa. Simulated grain
yields increased up to 27.9% under elevated scenarios of CO2 from 380 to 410 ppm by
the model. Large yield reductions were observed on decreasing plant population.
However, model did not show any significant change due to increase in the plant
population.
Kumar et al. (2014) studied the impact of climate variability using
CROPGRO-black gram and CERES-wheat model for Tarai region of Uttrakhand,
India. They reported that the CERES-wheat and CROPGRO-black gram models
satisfactorily simulated the temperature, solar radiation, day length and CO2
concentration effects on yield. Increase in solar radiation from 1 to 3 MJ m-2 day-1 for
34
black gram showed decrease in yield by 12 to 28 % while decrease in solar radiation
by 1 to 3 MJ m-2 day-1 showed gradual increase in yield by 1 to 23% of blackgram.
Enhancement in CO2 levels showed gradually increase in yield by 1803 to 2083 kg ha-
1
, even though decrease in CO2 level by -120,-220 and -320 ppm the yield decreased by
28 to 90% for black gram crop. CERES wheat model results exposed that increase in
solar radiation from 1 to 3 MJ m-2 day-1 corroborate increase in yield while decrease in
solar radiation by 1 to 3 MJ m-2 day-1 showed gradual decline in yield. Decrease in
CO2 level by -120 ppm the wheat yield was 2832 kg ha-1, -220 ppm the yield was 608
kg ha-1 and at -320 ppm the simulated yield was only 29 kg ha-1.
Patel et al. (2015) studied the impact of climate change on different crops
(wheat, maize, pearl millet, paddy and groundnut) of Gujarat using InfoCrop and
DSSAT models. They found that the maximum yield reduction (-61 %) is projected in
wheat and lowest in pearl millet (-<8%). Maize during kharif season would be more
affected (-47 %) than the rabi season (-10 %). Similarly pearl millet in summer season
will be least affected (-8%) than kharif season (-14 %).
Mishra et al. (2015) studied the sensitivity analysis of three Triticum
aestivum (GW 322, GW 496 and GW 366) and one Triticum durum (GW 1139) cultivar
of wheat to asses the change in the grain yield of wheat due to changed sunshine hours
(BSS), maximum and minimum temperatures using WOFOST model. The potential
condition was assumed with congenial weather and adequate management practices.
They reported that the increase in sunshine hours was found to increase the yield in all
cultivars and vice versa. The rise in maximum and minimum temperatures had adverse
effect on wheat yield. The increase in the maximum temperature by 5 0C may cause
reduction in yield by 24 to 29%. The effect of the minimum temperature was also of
the similar order, but the varietal differences were observed. Among the cultivars, GW
35
496 was found to be most sensitive to maximum temperature and less to bright sunshine
hours. Among the different stages, flowering to dough stage was found to be most
sensitive stage.
Srivastava et al. (2016) used CROPGRO-chickpea model to study the impact
of climate change on phenology, growth and yield of chickpea at Jabalpur. It was found
that model closely simulated the phenological event as well as biomass. The model
underestimated seed yield of both the cultivars but more error was involved in
simulation of JG 11. Under rainfed conditions there was large differences between
observed and simulated. Under climate change scenarios (increasing maximum
temperature by +1 to +3 0C, minimum temperature by+0.5 to 2.5 0C and CO2 from 400
to 600ppm); the seed yield of the chickpea cultivars would increase by 102.8 and 187.7
per cent under irrigated conditions at Jabalpur. The large variability in yield was noted
under rainfed as compared to irrigated conditions.
Yadav et al. (2016) studied the impact of climate change and variability on
productivity of different monsoon (pigeonpea and groundnut) and winter season crops
(chickpea, mustard, tomato and potato) at Varanasi using Decision Support System for
Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT v4.6.1). They found that the Productivity of
pigeonpea and groundnut in monsoon season and mustard, tomato and potato in winter
season decreased with an increase in temperature. Productivity of different pulse,
oilseed and vegetable crops increased under expected enhanced CO2 concentrations.
Highest productivity decreased in pigeonpea crop (96.0%) in monsoon season and
minimum in tomato crop (4.0%) in winter season with an increase of 3.0 0C in
temperature above normal. Highest productivity increase in mustard crop (164.0%) in
winter season and lowest in pigeonpea crop (33.0%) in monsoon season were simulated
under projected enhanced CO2 concentration of 760 ppm. Highest counter-balance in
36
productivity of mustard crop (150%) followed by tomato crop (81%) during winter
season and lowest in pigeonpea crop (99%) during monsoon season were simulated
when an increase in temperature by 3.0 0C above normal under projected enhanced CO2
concentration of 760 ppm.
Yadav et al. (2017) used PNUTGRO model to study the impact of projected
climate change on groundnut (cv. Robut 33-1 and GG-2) at Anand station of middle
Gujarat. They reported that the mean maximum and minimum temperature will be
higher to the tune of 3.6 and 5.1 °C as compared to their base temperature of 19.1 and
29.8 °C respectively. Nearly 21 and 31% pod yield reduction was noted in Robut 33-1
and GG-2 as compared to their base yield during projected period.
The effect of weather on groundnut crop is quite complex and sometimes the
effect of one factor is interlinked with that of the other factors. There are many variables
that affect the crop growth and development in different ways and at different times
during the growth period of the crop. Weather parameters like high air temperature
effect on flower production, flowers setting pegs (fruit-set) and hence fruit numbers,
delayed pegging and podding in groundnut, also indicating greater sensitivity of
pegging and podding than flowering to high temperatures, initiation of flowering and
the start of the pod development stages were most susceptible to variation in the
photoperiod. In case of water deficits occurring during the flowering to the start of pod
growth phase significantly reduced pod yield. Warmer temperatures and higher relative
humidity during crop growth period favourably influenced the yield contributing
characters and finally the pod yield. In contrast, high soil temperature significantly
reduced flower production and the proportion of pegs forming pods. Quantification of
growth response and yield variations due to variations in weather, space, time, cultivar
characteristics and soil environment are essentially required. Agricultural systems are
37
very complex. If we hope to manage our scarce agricultural resources or to estimate the
effects of future climatic change on agriculture, we first need to develop an integrated
tool that will simulate observed crop growth in a wide variety of environments and
under a wide variety of management practices. Fortunately, advances in computer
technology have made it possible to represent the advancement in techniques enabled
to development such computer models to represent the soil–plant–climate system
quantitatively. Crop simulation models are tools that can facilitate identification of
production constraints and assist in agro-technology transfer. Crop simulation model
improve agronomic weather information and interpretation in time to come and it also
helpful to farmers to reduce production risks and increase crop yield by tailoring
management decisions to current and expected weather. The principle of crop growth
modelling and its application to decision making are based on the understanding of
natural processes and using this understanding to describe agricultural systems
performance through systems analysis. Calibration and validation of crop models can
improve our understanding the physical and physiological processes involved in the
growth of a crop.
38
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field experiments were conducted to achieve the objectives set forth for the
present investigation during the summer season of the years 2015 and 2016. The
experimental details and methodology pertaining to the study are given as following.
3.1 Experimental site
The field experiment was laid out at the Agronomy Farm (Plot no A-17), B. A.
College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University Anand. Anand is located at the
latitude of 22°35’N and longitude of 72°55’E and at an elevation of 45.1m above the
mean sea level. The location of the experimental site falls in the Middle Gujarat Agro-
Climatic Zone-III. And located near to the Agrometeorological observatory.
3.2 Climate
Anand which is 90 km away from the Arabian Sea, experiences semi-arid
climate with fairly hot and dry summer with mild winter. The southwest monsoon wind
current during summer brings the rain from 3rd week of June to the first forth night of
September with an average annual rainfall of 832 mm. The weather remains dry from
October to June. The summer is hot and the mercury rises up to 45.5 0C during the
month of May, while the winter is mild cool, dry and temperature dips up to 5.0 0C
during the month of January and on an average the minimum temperature is about 11.0
0
C in winter months. However, the mean maximum temperature of this region during
the month of May is 40.1 0C and the mean minimum temperature during the month of
January is 10.9 0C.
3.3 Soil characterestics
The experiment was conducted on sandy loam soil, a true representative soil of
the region. The soil is locally known as ‘Goradu soil’. The soil is loamy sand with
Materials and Methods
alluvial in origin and belongs to Entisols (type: ustorthents). The experimental field has
a gentle slope and good drainage as well as fair moisture retentive capacity. The water
table is more than 10 m deep (Lakkad, 1993) and hence, the contribution of ground
water towards the crop evapotranspiration is negligible. The mechanical composition
as well as chemical and physical properties of the soil at depth 0-15 and 15-30 which
are given in Table 3.3.1. The soil chemical properties indicated that it was low in total
nitrogen, medium in available phosphorus and high in available potash. The soil is free
from any kind of salinity and sodicity.
Table 3.3.1: Physico-chemical properties of the experimental plots.
Soil depth (cm)

Particulars
0-15 15-30
1. Mechanical composition
I. Coarse sand (%) 0.53 0.52
II. Fine sand (%) 82.5 82.8
III. Silt (%) 11.51 11.42
IV. Clay (%) 5.46 5.26
V. Textural class Loamy sand
2. Chemical properties
I. EC (1:2.5) (dSm-1) 0.14 0.16
II. Soil pH (1:2:5) 7.9 8.05
III. Organic carbon (%) 0.209 0.209
IV. Total nitrogen (%) 0.040 0.041
V. Available P2O5 (kg ha-1) 63.43 75.64
VI. Available K2O (kg ha-1) 219.76 203.68
3. Physical properties
F.C. (%) 17.5 17.0
P.W.P (%) 4.55 4.68
B. D. (g cc-1) 1.39 1.41
Source: Patel, (2011)
40
3.4 Experimental details
The experimental and treatment details studied are given as under:
3.4.1 Layout
The experiment was laid out in a split plot design with three sowing dates as
main plot treatments and four varieties were allotted as sub plot treatments. The
treatments were replicated four times and assigned at random to each main and sub
plot in each replication. The plan of layout is depicted in Fig. 3.4.1 and field view of
the experimental site in Plate 1.
3.4.2 Treatment combinations
There were 12 treatment combinations in total, which are described in Table 3.4.1.
Table 3.4.1. Details of treatment combinations.
Sr. No Sowing dates Varieties Code
1. D1 (31 January) V1 (GG-2) D1V1
2. D1 (31 January) V2 (GG-20) D1V2
3. D1 (31 January) V3 (GJG-31) D1V3
4. D1 (31 January) V4 (TG-26) D1V4
5. D2 (15 days after D1) V1 (GG-2) D2V1
7. D2 (15 days after D1) V3 (GJG-31) D2V3
8. D2 (15 days after D1) V4 (TG-26) D2V4
11. D3 (30 days after D1) V3 (GJG-31) D3V3
12. D3 (30 days after D1) V4 (TG-26) D3V4
41
42
43
3.4.3 Experimental set up
Crop : Groundnut
Variety : GG 2, GG 20, GJG 31 and TG 26
Experimental design : Split plot
Total treatment combinations : Twelve
Treatment details
Main plot treatments : Three dates of sowing
D1- (31 January)
D2- (15 days after D1)
D3- (30 days after D1)
Subplot treatments : Four varieties
V1- GG 2
V2- GG 20
V3- GJG 31
V4- TG 26
Number of replications : Four
Total number of plots : 48
Crop season : Summer season of the years 2015 and
2016
Plot size
Gross plot : 4.50 X 3.60 m
Net plot : 3.50 X 2.40 m
Spacing : 30 X 10 cm
Seed rate : 100 kg ha-1
Fertilizer rate : 25:50:00 kg NPK ha-1
Seed treatment : Thiram @ 3 g kg-1 of seeds
Location : Agronomy farm, plot number (A-17)
BACA, AAU, Anand
3.5 CULTURAL OPERATIONS
A schedule of cultural operations followed during the entire crop growth period
for both the years is presented in Table 3.5.1.
44
3.5.1 Land preparation
Stubbles of the previous crop and weeds were collected and removed from the
field. The experimental field was cultivated by criss-cross, tractor drawn cultivator
during both the years. Planking was done in both the directions to develop a fine tilth.
3.5.2 Fertilization
The lines were drawn by marker in each plot with a spacing of 30 cm in between
rows and furrows were opened by Kudali. Full dose of nitrogen (25 kg N ha-1) in the
form of urea and phosphorus (50 kg P2O5 ha-1) in the form of di-ammonium phosphate
was applied as per the recommended dose of fertilizer during both the seasons of
experimentation.
3.5.3 Seed treatment and sowing
Before sowing, the seeds of GG-2, GG-20, GJG-31 and TG-26 variety were
treated with Thiram @ 3 gm per kg of seeds. The seeds were drilled in previously
opened and fertilized furrows at a distance of 30 cm between and 10 cm within row @
100 kg ha-1 during both the years.
3.5.4 Gap filling
In all the treatments, gap filling was done after twelve to fifteen days of sowing
to ensure uniform plant population.
3.5.5 Weeding and intercultivation
In both the years, three hand weeding operations were carried out in groundnut
crop to maintain weed free condition during crop season.
3.5.6 Plant protection
No serious disease or insect pest was observed during the course of
investigation; however as precautionary measure against termite, Chlorpyriphos 20 EC
@ 1.5 lit ha-1 was applied during both the years.
45
3.5.7 Harvesting and threshing
A light pre-harvest irrigation was given for easy uprooting and harvest of the
pods. From each plot ring lines were harvested first and shifted to threshing yard. Then
randomly selected five plants for recording observation were harvested separately from
each net plot and their produce was added to respective plot separated from plant
manually. Both pods and haulm were completely sun dried and yield of dry pods, kernel
and haulm were recorded for each net plot.
Table 3.5.1: Calendar of field operations carried out during investigation.
Cultural operations Dates of operation

S. No
2015 2016
(A) Pre-sowing operations
1 Tractor ploughing 30/01/2015 27/01/2016
2 Harrowing and planking 30/01/2015 28/01/2016
3 Layout and marking 30/01/2015 30/01/2016
4 Opening of furrows D1 31/01/2015 31/01/2016
D2 15/02/2015 15/02/2016
D3 02/03/2015 01/03/2016
5 Fertilizer application D1 31/01/2015 31/01/2016
D2 15/02/2015 15/02/2016
D3 02/03/2015 01/03/2016
(B) Sowing and aftercare operations
1 Sowing D1 31/01/2015 31/01/2016
D2 15/02/2015 15/02/2016
D3 02/03/2015 01/03/2016
2 Gap filling D1 15/02/2015 15/02/2016
D2 02/03/2015 01/03/2016
D3 14/03/2015 15/03/2016
st
3 Hand weeding 1 D1 20/02/2015 22/02/2016
D2 07/03/2015 09/03/2016
D3 22/03/2015 23/03/2016
4 ‘’ 2nd D1 02/03/2015 05/03/2016
D2 17/03/2015 19/03/2016
D3 02/04/2015 04/04/2016
5 ‘’ 3 rd
D1 14/03/2015 16/03/2016
D2 27/03/2015 29/03/2016
D3 15/04/2015 17/04/2016
6 Harvesting D1 31/05/2015 30/05/2016
D2 18/06/2015 15/06/2016
D3 20/06/2015 23/06/2016
46
3.6 Agronomical and phenological observations
Five plants were selected and tagged from each of the net plot of all the
treatments of one of the replications for recording the agronomical and phenological
observations. Phenology was observed on alternate days.
3.6.1 Growth attributing characters
For recording growth attributing characters visual observations like number of
days taken for attainment of each phenophase was recorded and for recording the crop
growth observations viz. plant height (cm), number of branches, leaf area/green leaf
area, biomass (green/dry biomass) root, stem and leaf, the plant samples were uprooted
from the border row of each plot of second replication. The samples were collected at
15 days interval after sowing till the harvest of the pods.
3.6.1.1 Days taken for attainment of each phenophases
Numbers of days from the date of sowing to the date of attainment of stages viz.
P1 emergence (DAS)
P2 first flower opening (DAS) (emergence of one open flower at any node on
the plant)
P3 50% flowering (DAS) (50% of the plants on a plot showed at least one
opened flower)
P4 100% flowering (DAS) (100% of the plants on a plot showed at least one
opened flower)
P5 peg initiation (DAS) (initiation of one elongated peg)
P6 pod initiation (DAS) (one peg in the soil with turned, swollen ovary at least
twice the width of peg)
P7 pod setting (DAS) (one fully expanded pod)
P8 pod maturity (DAS) (one pod showing visible natural coloration or blotching
of inner pericarp or testa)
P9 physiological maturity (DAS)
Source: Boote, (1982)
47
3.6.1.2 Plant height (cm)
The plant height of groundnut crop was measured from five plants selected
randomly in each treatment at 15 days interval after sowing till the harvest of the pods.
The height was measured from the base of the plant (ground level) to the tip of upper
most fully opened leaf and finally the mean height of plant in centimeter (cm) in each
treatment was worked out and were recorded.
3.6.1.3 Number of branches per plant
The number of branches was recorded from five plants selected randomly in
each treatment at 15 days interval after sowing till the harvest of the pods and the
average numbers of branches in each treatment was worked out and were recorded.
3.6.1.4 Leaf area index (LAI)
Three plants were uprooted from ring line of each plot of second replication and
removing the leaves from each plant, the leaves were allowed to pass through the leaf
area meter to recorded green leaf area (cm2) at 15 days interval after sowing till the
harvest of the pods. The LAI was computed as,
Total green leaf area(cm2 )

LAI =
Ground area covered by the plant (cm2 )
3.6.1.5 Biomass accumulation and partitioning
To record the weight of green biomass leaves, stem, root and pods were
separated from same plants that were uprooted for LAI. All sample put in oven at 72°C
for 24 hours till a constant dry weight was obtained and noted.
3.6.2 Yield and yield attributing characters
3.6.2.1 Mature and immature pods per plant
Total number of mature and immature pods per plant were counted from
selecting five uprooted plants from each net plot at the time of harvesting and finally
average mature and immature pods per plant in each treatment was worked out.
48
49
3.6.2.2 Mature and immature pod weight per plant
Mature and immature pod weight per plant were recorded separately for
selected five uprooted plants from each net plot at the time of harvesting and finally
average mature and immature pod weight per plant in each treatment was worked out
in gram.
3.6.2.3 Shelling percentage
A composite sample of 100 g was drawn randomly from the bulk of the dry
pods of each net plot and shelled. The ratio of kernels to pod weight was worked out
and expressed in percentage.
3.6.2.4 Test weight in gram (100 kernels)
A composite sample of kernels was drawn from shelled pods of each net plot
and 100 kernels were counted and weighed and recorded separately for each plot to
determine test weight in gram.
3.6.2.5 Pod yield (kg ha-1)
After harvest of the crop, uprooted plants were allowed in sun drying for four
days and thereafter matured pods were separated manually. These pods were also
exposed to sun for five days for drying. The dried pods were weighed and recorded
separately for each net plot and the pod yield was worked out as kg ha-1.
3.6.2.6 Kernel yield (kg ha-1)
After measurement of dried pod weight, kernel was separated from pods and
weighed separately for each net plot and the kernel yield was worked out as kg ha-1.
3.6.2.7 Haulm yield (kg ha-1)
After harvest of the crop, uprooted plants were allowed for sun drying for four
days and thereafter separating mature pods, the dry biomass were also exposed to sun
50
for five days for drying. The dry biomass was weighed and recorded separately for each
net plot and the haulm yield was worked out as kg ha-1.
3.6.2.8 Harvest index (%)
Harvest index is the percentage ratio of economic yield (pod yield) to biological
yield (pod yield + above ground dry weight). It was computed by using the following
formula given by Donald and Hamblin (1976).
Economic yield (kg ha−1 )

HI (%) = X 100
Biological yield (kg ha−1 )
3.7 Meteorological observations
3.7.1 Daily observations
The daily observations of maximum and minimum temperatures, rainfall, bright
sunshine hours, wind speed, pan evaporation and wind speed were recorded at
Agrometeorological observatory situated near the experimental site. Relative humidity
and vapour pressure and soil temperature at depth 5, 10 and 15 cm were recorded two
times a day in morning (0738 IST) hours and afternoon (1438 IST) hours.
3.8 Computation of agrometeorological indices
Agrometeorological indices like growing degree days (GDD), heliothermal unit
(HTU) and photothermal unit (PTU) were computed by using the methodology as
described by Nuttonson (1955).
3.8.1 Growing degree days (GDD)
The growing degree days were computed by considering the base temperature
of 100C. The sum of the degree days for the completion of each phenophases were
obtained by using the following formula:
𝑑ℎ
̅ − Tbi)
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐺𝐷𝐷 = ∑ (T
𝑖=𝑑𝑠
51
Where,
T = daily mean air temperature in °C
T = {(Tmax +Tmin) / 2}
T max = daily maximum temperature in°C
T min = daily minimum temperature in°C
Tbi = base temperature in°C
ds = date of sowing or the date of commencement of the phenophases.
dh = date of harvesting or the date of ending of the respective phenophases.
3.8.2 Heliothermal units (HTU)
The heliothermal unit for a given day represents the product of GDD and the
actual hours of bright sunshine for that day. The sum of the HTU for the duration of
each phenophase was determined by using the following formula:
Accumulated HTU (°C day) = GDD x Ds
Where, Ds = daily bright sunshine hours.
3.8.3 Photothermal unit (PTU)
The photothermal unit for a day represents the product of GDD and the possible
sunshine hours calculated for Anand latitude. The accumulated of PTU for each
phenophase was determined by the following formula:
Accumulated PTU (°C day) = GDD x N
Where, N = possible hours of sunshine.
3.9 Crop growth modeling
3.9.1 CROPGRO (DSSAT.v.4.6) model description
It is a physiologically based crop growth simulation model, which predicts LAI,
crop development, growth, yield prediction of groundnut depending on daily weather
data (maximum temperature, minimum temperature, rainfall and solar radiation) for
52
specific soils. Soil parameters describe the ability of the soil to store water and to supply
water to plant roots based on processes of run-off, percolation and redistribution of
water in the profile. Thus soil characteristics and weather data are required as inputs.
The model is sensitive to cultivar choice, planting date, row and plant spacing and
irrigation management and pest and disease etc.
3.9.2 Input and output files
The files are organized into input, output and experiment performance data file.
Typical organizations of these are depicted in Table 3.9.2.1 and 3.9.2.2. The experiment
performance files are needed only when simulated results are to be compared with data
recorded in a particular experiment. In some cases, they could be used as input files to
reset some variable during the course of a simulation run. Model input files are
organized to allow some flexibility in their use with specific models.
3.9.3 List of input requirement by DSSAT model
The different input data of an experiment for running CROPGRO (DSSAT)
model are given in Table 3.9.3.1
Table 3.9.2.1 CROPGRO (DSSAT) model input files

Sr. No. Input files Description
1. FILE 1 Daily weather data
2. FILE 2 Soil profile properties
3. FILE 3 Unused at present time
4. FILE 4 Soil nitrogen dynamics properties
5. FILE 5 Soil profile initial conditions
6. FILE 6 Irrigation Management data
7. FILE 7 Nitrogen fertilizer management data
8. FILE 8 Crop management data
9. FILE 9 Genetic Coefficient
10. FILE 0 Crop-specific coefficient
53
Table 3.9.2.2 CROPGRO (DSSAT) model output files
Sr. No. File name Description

1 OUT1 Output record of crop model inputs.
Simulated biomass and water balance
components at selected phenological
stages. Harvest summary.
2 OUT2 Simulated crop variables vs time.
3 OUT3 Weather variables and simulated soil
Water balance vs time
4 OUT4 Simulated soil nitrogen variables vs time
3.9.4 Calibration of the model
For calibration of the CROPGRO-Peanut model, data on plant growth and
development, soil characteristics, weather and crop management were collected as
required for determining the cultivar coefficients of V1-GG-2, V2-GG-20, V3-GJG-26
and V4-TG-26, following the procedures described in IBSNAT and Hoogenboom et
al., (1999). The data were collected from field experiments conducted during summer
season as described in section 3.4. The cultivar coefficients were estimated by repeated
iterations by running the GLUE coefficient calculator using the observed phenology
and yield for all the sowing environments during both the years until a close match
between simulated and observed phenology and yield was obtained. The details of these
coefficients are given in Table 4.13. The calibrated genetic coefficients based on 2015
field experimental data for groundnut cv. GG 2, GG 20, TG 26 and GJG 31 in summer
season of Anand condition are mentioned in the following Table 4.12
3.9.5 Validation of the model
Model validation, in its simplest form is a comparison between simulated and
observed values. Beyond comparisons, there are several statistical measures available
to evaluate the association between predicted and observed values. Test criteria have
been separated into two groups, called summary measures and difference measures.
54
Summary measures include the mean of observed values (O) and predicted values (P) ,
the standard deviation of observations (So) and the predictions (Sp).
The summary measures describe the quality of simulation while, the difference
measures try to locate and quantify the errors. The latter include the mean absolute
error (MAE), the mean bias error (MBE) and the root mean square error (RMSE). They
were calculated according to Willmott (1982) as following and were based on the terms
(Pi – Oi):
n
MAE = ∑I=1[ 1Pi − Oi 1]/n
n
MBE = ∑[ Pi − Oi ]/n
I=1
n
RMSE = [∑I=1( Pi − Oi )2 /n]1/2
MAE and RMSE indicate the magnitude of the average error, but provide no
information on the relative size of the average difference between (P) and (O). The
statistic MBE describes the direction of the error bias. The value of MBE is related to
the magnitude of the values under investigation. A negative MBE indicates that the
predictions are smaller in values than those of the corresponding observations.
3.10 Sensitivity analysis of CROPGRO-peanut model for climate change
studies
Sensitivity analysis is an important way of evaluating models. It helps to better
understand variation in output to changes in inputs. The analysis were done with input
parameters which include maximum and minimum temperatures, solar radiation, CO2.
The sensitivity analysis of climate change were carried out by increasing and
decreasing maximum and minimum temperature by -2 to +3 °C and CO2 level of 450,
500, 550 ppm in input file of the model. All interactions carried out using the validated
model for each genotype.
55
3.11 ANALYSIS OF DATA
3.11.1 Statistical analysis
The data on pod yield and its attributes generated through the field
experimentation for the summer season of the two years 2015 and 2016 were subjected
to statistical analysis to ascertain the best treatment combination and to use the data
pertinent to that treatment combination to conduct the subsequent correlation and
regression studies. The statistical analysis was carried out by using "Analysis of
variance techniques". The value of the statistic "F" was worked out and compared with
the table value of "F" at 5 per cent level of significance, the value of C. D. was worked
out to compare the treatment means (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967).
3.11.2 Correlation and regression studies
Correlation studies between the total pod yield with the various weather
parameters as well as agrometeorological indices during different out phenophases
were carried out using methodology described by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The entire
procedures as described above were carried out for the purpose of fulfilling the
objectives of this investigation and pertinent results are described in the next chapter.
56
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present investigation was carried out during the summer seasons of the
years 2015 and 2016 with the prime objective of simulating the phenology and pod
yield of four different cultivars of groundnut using the CROPGRO-peanut (DSSAT v
4.6) model after calibrating genetic coefficients of groundnut cultivars using field
experiment data carried out at Anand (Middle Gujarat Agro-climatic region)
conditions. The results of pod yield and various yield attributing characters in terms of
their respective actual values were compared with respectively those simulated by the
model. The results are presented and discussed under titled paragraphs in pursuance
of the objectives set forth for the study.
4.1 Weather conditions during crop seasons summer 2015 and 2016
The average meteorological parameters maximum temperature (Tmax.),
minimum temperature (Tmin.), mean temperature (Tmean), morning relative humidity
(RH1), afternoon relative humidity (RH2), mean relative humidity (RHmean), morning
vapor pressure (VP1), afternoon vapor pressure (VP2), mean vapor pressure
(VPmean), evaporation (EP), bright sunshine hours (BSS) and rainfall (RF) as
prevailed during different phases viz., [P1 (from sowing to emergence), P2 (from
emergence to first flower opening), P3 (from first flower opening to 50 % flowering),
P4 (from 50 % flowering to peg initiation), P5 (from peg initiation to 100 %
flowering), P6 (from 100 % flowering to pod initiation), P7 (from pod initiation to pod
development), P8 (from pod development to pod maturity), P9 (from pod maturity to
physiological maturity)] of crop growing seasons of2015 and 2016 are depicted in Fig
4.1.1 to 4.1.10. The meteorological standard week wise weather prevailed during both
the crop seasons are depicted in Appendix I.

Results and Discussion
4.1.1 Air temperature
The phases wise maximum temperature (Tmax.) during 2015 and 2016 crop
growing seasons under different date of sowing (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February,
D3- 02nd March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2- GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) is
depicted in Fig. 4.1.1. Figure shows that during different phases of the crop maximum
temperature (Tmax.) ranged between 29.7 and 42.8°C in 2016 and 29.5 and 41.7°C
during 2015. Generally increasing trend of the (Tmax.) is noticed from P1 (sowing to
emergence) phase to till the end of physiological maturity in all dates of sowing
during both the years with slight fluctuation during certain phases of the groundnut.
During 2015, Tmax. ranged from 29.4to 41.4°C under D1 (31st January) sowing, from
30.8 to 41.3°C under D2 (15th February) sowing and from 29.8 to 42.2°C under D3
(02nd March) sowing. This is shows that the crop sown under late sown conditions
experienced higher maximum temperature (Tmax.) in comparison to early sown
crops. Similarly in the second year of experiment also higher Tmax. ranged from 29.7
to 41.6°C under D1 (31st January) sowing, from31.7 to 41.4°C underD2 (15th February)
sowing and 35.8 to 41.2°C under D3 (02nd March) sowing. The large variation in
Tmax. during P2 (from emergence to first flower opening) to P5 (from 100 %
flowering to peg initiation) phase under three dates of sowings seems to be
responsible for differences in yield and yield attributes of groundnut cultivars. Among
the varieties, there does not seem to be significant differences in Tmax.
The phases wise minimum temperature (Tmin.) under different date of sowing
(D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2-
GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) during the year 2015 and 2016 is depicted in Fig.
4.1.2. Figure shows that the minimum temperature (Tmin.) during crop growing
season increased continuously with the advancement of the crop in different
phenophases with slight fluctuations in certain phases. Tmin. increased from 12.2 to
57
58
59
60
27.7°C during 2015 and from 12.0 to 28.2°C in 2016. Among the sowing
dates, the crop sown on D1 (31st January) experienced lower Tmin. (12.2 to 27.4 °C)
than that sown on D2 (15th February) (14.4 to 27.8°C) and D3 (02nd March) (14.4 to
27.5°C) sown crops. Similarly in 2016 also lower Tmin. (12.0 to 26.3 °C) experienced
on D1 (31st January) sowing than that sown on D2 (15th February) (16.1 to 26.5°C) and
D3 (02nd March) (19 to 27.9°C) sown crops. During flowering to peg initiation (P5)
phase a slight fall in minimum temperature is observed Fig. 4.1.2.
The mean temperature (Tmean) ranged between 20.6 and 34.6°C during 2015,
while the corresponding range in the year 2016 (20.8 to 35.1°C). During 2015, the
crop experienced lower (Tmean) temperature under D1 (31st January) sowing which
ranged between (23.4 and 34.1°C) in comparison to the range of (20.6 to 34.6°C)
under D2 (15th February) sowing and (22.3 to 34.2°C) under D3 (02nd March) sowing.
Similarly trend was observed in year 2016 also with slight higher values. Under D1
(31st January) sowing it ranged from (20.8 to 35.1°C) underD2 (15th February) it
ranged from (24.3 to 34.7°C) and under D3 (02nd March) it ranged from (27.5 to
34.5°C) Fig.4.1.3. Among the different cultivars in both year no any noticeable
variation was observed in (Tmean) temperature.
The phaseswise morning relative humidity (RH1) and afternoon relative
humidity (RH2) during 2015 and 2016 crop growing season under different dates of
sowing (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2,
V2- GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) are depicted in Figs. 4.1.4 to 4.1.5
Figure 4.1.4 shows that during crop growing seasons of the mooring relative
humidity (RH1) varied from 69.0 to 95.0 % and from 56.0 to 86.3%, in years 2015
and 2016 respectively. Generally, the (RH1) decreased with the crop age in both the
years, with slight fluctuations during different phases in comparison to 2015, the
61
62
63
(RH1) was lower in 2016. In 2015, under different dates of sowing, (RH1)
varied between 69.0 and 91.5% in D1 (31st January), between 70.3 and 89.5% in D2
(15th February) and between 73.9 and 95.0%, in D3 (02nd March) sown groundnut
crop. Similarly in year 2016, (RH1) ranged between 57.8 and 86.5%in D1 (31st
January), between 57.8 and 86.0% in D2 (15th February) and 56.0 to 88.3% under D3
(02nd March) sowing. (RH1) is highly variable in different phases of the crop. The
fluctuation in (RH1) during year 2015 in different phases were than that of 2016.
The afternoon relative humidity (RH2) during the crop growing season ranged
between 22.5 and 47.0% in 2015 and between 12.0 and 39.8%in 2016. In 2015
afternoon relative humidity (RH2) ranged between 27.8 and 43.2 % under D1 (31st
January), between 22.5 and 47.0% under D2 (15th February) and 25.0 to 46.5% under
D3 (02nd March) sowing. Similarly in 2016 afternoon relative humidity (RH2) ranged
between 21.9 and 35.0 % under D1 (31st January), between 12.0 and 41.2%underD2
(15th February) and between 21.0 to 39.8% D3 (02nd March) sowing. During the both
years, fluctuation in afternoon relative humidity was more duringD2 (15th February)
sowing. Among the different cultivars variation in afternoon relative humidity (RH2)
did not differ much in both the year 2015 and 2016 Fig.1.1.5.
4.1.3 Vapour pressure
The phase wise morning vapour pressure (VP1), afternoon vapour pressure
(VP2) and mean vapour pressure (VP mean) during 2015 and 2016 crop growing
season under different dates of sowing (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd
March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2- GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) are depicted in
Figs. 4.1.6 to 4.1.8
In 2015 crop growing season the morning vapour pressure (VP1) ranged
from10.4 to 24.1 mm of Hg under D1 (31st January), 11.6 to 24.1 mm of Hg under D2
(15th February)and 12.2 to 24.5 mm of Hg under D3 (02nd March) sowing Fig. 4.1.6.
64
65
66
67
Similarly, in 2016 these values ranged from 9.7 to 23.8 mm of Hg under D1
(31st January), 9.1 to 24.1 mm of Hg under D2 (15th February) and 13.2 to 23.6 mm of
Hg underD3 (02nd March) sowing. In general, (VP1) increased with the age of crops.
During P1 (sowing to emergence) phase it varied between 9.2 to 14.8 mm of Hg over
the dates and year, which was increased from 9.2 to 25 mm of Hg and varied in
ranged between 19.2 and 24 mm of Hg during physiological maturity (P9). A large
variation in (VP1) is observed during P5 (peg initiation to 100 % flowering) phase of
cultivars V1 (GG 2) and V2 (GG 20) in 2015 as well as 2016.
The afternoon vapour pressure (VP2) also shows increasing trend during the
crop growing season of the 2015, where as in 2016, it was more or less constant upto
P6 (100% flowering to pod initiation) phase and then increased under all dates of
sowing and cultivars. Fig. 4.1.7. In 2015, it ranged between 10.5 to 11.9mm of Hg
under D1 (31st January), between 10.0 to 22.6 mm of Hg D2 (15th February) and
between 10.9 to 21.3 mm of Hg under D3 (02nd March) sowing, which in 2016, there
values were ranged between 9.5 to 19.0, 6.0 to 19.8 and 10.4 to 19.1 mm of Hg under
D1 (31st January), D2 (15th February) and D3 (02nd March) sowing respectively.
The range of mean vapour pressure (VPmean) between (11.3 to 22.2, 11.1 to
21.9 and 11.6 to 22.7 mm of Hg) under (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd
March) sowing, respectively during the crop growing season of the year 2015 Fig.
4.1.8. Similarly, these values were ranged between (10.0 to 21.4, 8.3 to 22.0 and 11.8
to 21.3 mm of Hg) under (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd March) sowing
respectively in the year 2016. Among the different cultivars mean vapour pressure
(VPmean) of ranged between (11.3 to 22.7 mm of Hg) and (9.0 to 22.0 mm of Hg)
during the year 2015 and 2016.
68
4.1.4 Bright sunshine hours
The phase wise bright sunshine hours (BSS) during 2015 and 2016 crop
growing season under different dates of sowing (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February,
D3- 02nd March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2- GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) is
depicted in Fig. 4.1.9.
Figure shows that in 2015, bright sunshine hours encountered by the crop
during different phenophases was highly variable, under three dates of sowing.
However, it varies between (8.5 and 11.1 hrs.) under D1 (31st January) sowing which
was higher than that experienced by the crop under D2 (15th February) (7.1 to 10.9
hrs.) and underD3 (02nd March) sowing (7.5 to 10.9 hrs.). Similarly, in 2016 these
values were ranged between 8.6 to11.1 under D1 (31st January), 8.1 to 11.2 under D2
(15th February) and 9.0 to 11.0 hrs. under D3 (02nd March) sowing. Figure 4.1.9 shows
that the fluctuations in the values of sunshine hours under different dates of sowing
was higher during crop growing season of year 2015 as compared to that of year
2016.
4.1.5 Evaporation
The phase wise pan evaporation (EP) during 2015 and 2016 crop growing
season under different dates of sowing (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd
March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2- GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) is depicted in
Fig. 4.1.10
The Figure shows that the EP increased continuously with advancement of the
crop age during the first year 2015 under D1 (31st January), D2 (15th February) and D3
(02nd March) sowings were ranged between 3.7 and 10.7, between 4.6 and 10.9, and
between 5.8 and 10.4 mm respectively. During the second year 2016 it ranged
between 3.7 and 10.7, between 4.6 and 10.9, between 5.8 and 10.4 mm, respectively.
69
70
71
4.2 Periodical plant observations
4.2.1 Plant height
The data pertaining to plant height from 15 days after sowing (DAS) to
harvest for different dates of sowing(D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd
March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2- GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) are presented
graphically in the Fig. 4.2.1.Figure shows that the plant height under different
treatments increases continuously upto 75 days after sowing (DAS), after that there
was not major increase in plant height in any of treatment. At 15 DAS the plant height
was (4 to 5 cm) which increases to (25 to 45 cm) at 75 DAS under different
treatments during both years. The maximum plant height was observed in D2 (15th
February) (27 to 44 cm) sowing followed by D1 (31st January) (27 to 38 cm) and (D3-
02nd March) (25 to 35 cm) sowing during the year 2015 and 2016. Among the
cultivar, the maximum plant height was recorded in cultivar V1 (GG 2) (49 and 50
cm) followed by cultivar V2 (GG-20) (45 and 47 cm), cultivar V4 (TG 26)(44 and 46
cm) and cultivar V3 (GJG 31) (36 and 39 cm) cultivars in 2015 and 2016. The rate of
increased in plant height was maximum during 45 to 75 DAS. In generally, the plant
height was more in 2016 as compared to 2015.
The data pertaining to number of branches plant-1 from 15 after sowing (DAS)
to harvest for different dates of sowing (D1- 31st January, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd
March) and cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2- GG 20, V3- GJG 31, V4- TG 26) are presented
graphically in the Fig. 4.2.2. Graph shows that the number of branches plant-1 under
all the treatments was increases from 15 to 75 DAS, after that there was no major
increase in number of branches in any of the treatment. At 15 DAS the number of
branches were (2-4 plant-1) which increased to (7-8 plant-1) at 75 DAS. The maximum
72
73
74
number of branches plant-1 was observed in the second date of sowing(6 to 9 plant-1)
followed by first date of sowing (5 to 7 plant-1) and third date of sowing (5 to 6
plant-1) under both the years. Among the verities, the maximum number of branches
plant-1 were recorded in cultivars V2-GG 20 (9 plant-1) followed by cultivars V1- GG 2
(7 plant-1), V3- GJG 31 (7 plant-1), and V4-TG 26 (6 plant-1) under both years.
The treatment wise periodic LAI was measured and are presented in Fig. 4.2.3.
Figure shows that the LAI increases upto 90 days after sowing (DAS), after 90 days
DAS decline the LAI is observed in all cultivars under different dates of sowing. The
LAI was higher under second date of sowing D2 (15th February) (5 to6) in all the
treatments and both the years in comparison to D1 (31st January) (4 to 5) and D3 (02nd
March) (4 to 5) sowing. Among the cultivars maximum LAI peak was observed in
cultivar V2-GG 20 (5.81 and 5.84) followed by V4-TG 26 (5.72 and 5.94) in year
2015 and 2016 respectively as compared to other date of sowing and cultivars. Higher
yield obtained from second date of sowing D2 (15th February) in cultivar V2-GG 20
may be due to more LAI as compared to other treatments.
4.2.4 Dry matter partitioning
The partitioning of dry matter in to leaf, stem, root and pod in expressed in
percentage under three dates of sowing (D1- 31stJanuary, D2- 15th February, D3- 02nd
March) is depicted in Fig. 4.2.4 and four cultivars (V1- GG 2, V2- GG 20, V3- GJG
31, V4- TG 26) it depicted graphically in Fig. 4.2.5. Figure shows that in initial stage
(15 DAS) root has significant contribution to dry matter (20-35 %). Whereas leaf
contributed maximum (40-45%) followed by steam (35-40%). During 30 to 60 DAS
leaf and steam contribute about 90-95%. The contribution of pod starts after 45 DAS,
and reaches to its maximum 20% at 105 DAS. During later part of crop growth period
75
76
77
78
75 to 100 DAS, the contribution by steam is more than that of leaf under all the
treatments. The contribution of pod was maximum (28 %) under D1 (31stJanuary) date
of sowing followed by D2 (15th February) (27 %) and D3 (02nd March) (21 %) sowing
dates. Among varieties the maximum contribution of pod was observed (29%) in
cultivar V1 (GG2) followed by cultivar V3 (GJG 31) (28%), cultivar V2 (GG 20) (27
%) and cultivar V4 (TG 26) (24%). The contribution of stem to dry biomass in
cultivarsV3 (GJG 31) and V4 (TG 26) was higher than stem during most of the period
(30-105 DAS) of the crop. At physiological maturity (105 DAS) stem contribute 41 to
52 %, followed by leaf 33 to 39 % in different varieties.
4.3. Phenological duration and heat accumulation
4.3.1 Phenophases
The life cycle of groundnut crop i.e. from sowing of the seed till the
physiological maturity of the crop was partitioned into nine phases viz.,[P1 (from
sowing to emergence), P2 (from emergence to first flower opening), P3 (from first
flower opening to 50 % flowering), P4 (from 50 % flowering to peg initiation), P5
(from peg initiation to 100 % flowering), P6 (from 100 % flowering to pod initiation),
P7 (from pod initiation to pod development), P8 (from pod development to pod
maturity), P9 (from pod maturity to physiological maturity)] on the basis of the visible
changes that occurred in the morphological characteristics of the crop. The number of
days taken by different cultivars of groundnut for completion of different phases and
under different dates of sowing and year is given in (Table 4.1).
79
Table 4.1: Number of days for different phases of groundnut cultivars sown
under three dates during two crop seasons
Treatments Phases
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 Total
Date of sowing
D1 (31stJanuary) 10 23 3 6 2 13 17 29 11 114
D2 (15th February) 9 22 4 6 2 13 17 29 10 112
D3 (02nd March) 7 21 3 5 1 12 14 30 11 104
Cultivars
V1 (GG 2) 9 22 4 6 1 13 16 30 10 111
V2 (GG 20) 9 23 3 6 2 14 18 30 10 115
V3 (GJG 31) 9 21 4 6 2 14 16 28 11 111
V4 (TG 26) 9 22 3 6 2 13 15 28 11 109
Year
2015 10 21 4 6 2 13 16 30 11 113
2016 8 23 3 6 2 13 16 28 10 109
Where P1 (from sowing to emergence), P2 (from emergence to first flower opening),

P3 (from first flower opening to 50 % flowering), P4 (from 50 % flowering to peg
initiation), P5 (from peg initiation to 100 % flowering), P6 (from 100 % flowering to
pod initiation), P7 (from pod initiation to pod development), P8 (from pod development
to pod maturity), P9 (from pod maturity to physiological maturity) phase
80
Number of days for emergence (sowing to emergence) varied between dates of
sowing (Table 4.1) Number of days taken for emergence (10 days) was more during
first date of sowing D1 (31st January) followed by D2 (15th February) (9 days) and
D3(02nd March)sowing (7 days). The differences in duration were mainly due to
variation in temperature during the period under different dates of sowing. From
emergence to first flower opening took 21 to 23 days, higher being early sown crop
D1 (31st January). Subsequent stage viz., 50 % flowering, peg initiation and 100 %
flowering did not take much time as all three stage were attained in just 9-12 days
under different dates of sowing. P6 (100% flowering to pod initiation took 12-13 days,
while P7 (pod initiation to pod development) took 14 to 17 days to attain their
respective stages, again higher days were required in early sown crops D1 (31st
January). For pod maturity and physiological maturity, the days required were almost
same under all the three dates of sowing. Thus the total number of days taken by the
groundnut crop from sowing to physiological maturity was maximum (114 days)
under D1 (31st January) sown crop followed by (112 days) under D2 (15th February)
sowing and (104 days) under D3 (02nd March) sown crop. Patra, et al. (1981) also
reported that number of days from emergence to maturity was reduced with delayed
sowing. Among the verities, V2-GG 20 took the maximum number of days (115 days)
to attain physiological maturity followed by V1-GG 2and V3-GJG 31 both took 111
days which V4- TG 26 the minimum days (109 days) to attain physiological maturity.
This may be due to the genetical characteristics of the cultivars. It may also be seen
(Table 4.1) that in 2015 the crop took 4 days lower for physiological maturity in
comparison to that of 2016.
The Agro-meteorological indices like growing degree days (GDD),
photothermal unit (PTU) and heliothermal unit (HTU), required for attainment of each
phase of groundnut cultivars under different dates of sowing were calculated and are
presented in (Table 4.2 to 4.4)

81
Growing degree days (GDD) accumulated during each phase of groundnut as
attended by different dates of sowing, cultivars and years are shown in (Table 4.2).
Results revealed that the accumulated GDD under different dates of sowing, from
sowing to physiological maturity was highest (2265 0C days) in second date of sowing
D2 (15th February) followed by (2228 0C days) third date of sowing D3 (02th March)
and (2096 0C days) in first date of sowing D1 (31st January). It may be noticed that the
number of days taken to physiological maturity was maximum under D1 (31st January)
sown crop (Table 4.1) but the accumulated GDD was minimum (20960C days) (Table
4.2). In case of different cultivars accumulation of GDD from sowing to physiological
maturity were more or less remained the same ranged between (2100 ± 160 0C days).
Between two years the accumulated GDD was higher (2236 0C days) in 2016 than
that of 2015 (2156 0C days).
Photothermal units (PTU) accumulated during each phase of groundnut as
attended by different dates of sowing, cultivars and year are shown in (Table 4.3)
Results revealed that the under different dates of sowing, accumulated PTU from
sowing to physiological maturity was maximum (28479 0C days hrs.) under second
date of sowing D2 (15th February) followed by (28394 0C days hrs.) third date of
sowing D3 (02th March) and (25962 0C days hrs.) in first date of sowing (D1-31st
January). Variation in PTU during different phases was similar to that observed in
case of GDD under different dates of sowing. Among the cultivars the accumulated
PTU from sowing to physiological maturity was maximum (291770C days hrs.) in
cultivar V3-GJG 31 followed by (28145 0C days hrs.) in cultivar V2-GG 20, (278170C
days hrs.) in cultivar V1-GG 2 and (273030C days hrs.) in cultivar V4-TG 26. Between
the two years the accumulated PTU was higher (280890C days hrs.) in 2016 than that
of 2015 (271340C days hrs.).
82
Table 4.2: Growing degree days (oC day) for different phenological phases of
groundnut cultivars sown under three dates during two crop seasons.
Treatments Phenological phases

Date of sowing
D1 (31stJanuary) 114 311 53 99 30 244 331 642 271 2096
D2(15th February) 139 337 69 125 36 259 365 694 241 2265
D3 (02nd March) 111 383 56 108 28 253 315 720 253 2228
Cultivars
V1 (GG 2) 122 342 67 116 23 264 335 702 242 2212
V2 (GG 20) 122 362 53 108 28 265 365 713 243 2260
V3 (GJG 31) 122 331 61 112 37 228 326 658 265 2140
V4 (TG 26) 130 329 59 112 42 251 325 655 280 2181
Year
2015 128 305 60 103 28 251 323 701 255 2156
2016 115 383 58 118 34 253 351 670 255 2236
Where P1 (from sowing to emergence), P2 (from emergence to first flower opening), P3

(from first flower opening to 50 % flowering), P4 (from 50 % flowering to peg initiation), P5
(from peg initiation to 100 % flowering), P6 (from 100 % flowering to pod initiation), P7
(from pod initiation to pod development), P8 (from pod development to pod maturity), P9
(from pod maturity to physiological maturity) phase
83
Table 4. 3: Photothermal unit (oC day hour) for different phonological phases of
groundnut cultivars sown under three dates during two crop seasons
Date of sowing
D1 (31stJan.)
1314 3606 641 1185 357 2930 4140 8234 3555 25962
D2(15th Feb.)
1602 4012 827 1501 436 3241 4600 9075 3184 28479
D3 (02nd March)
1336 4599 696 1360 355 3186 4042 9458 3364 28394
Cultivars
V1 (GG 2)
1417 4052 820 1414 276 3266 4237 9141 3193 27817
V2 (GG 20)
1428 4111 569 1238 328 3188 4708 9191 3384 28145
V3 (GJG 31)
1445 4921 737 1782 554 2992 3946 8922 3878 29177
V4 (TG 26)
1417 4015 680 1292 463 3100 4077 8695 3563 27303
Year
2015
1488 3614 733 1257 346 3109 4085 9129 3371 27134
2016
1346 4530 710 1440 419 3128 4436 8716 3363 28089

84
Table 4.4: Heliothermal unit (oC day hour) for different phenological phases of
groundnut cultivars sown under three dates during two crop seasons
Date of sowing
D1 (31stJan.) 1082 2860 496 926 291 2320 3089 6554 3012 20628
D2(15th Feb.) 1248 3161 695 1167 310 2371 3713 7406 2523 22593
D3 (02nd March) 1052 3624 515 969 267 2583 3079 7858 2372 22318
Cultivars
V1 (GG 2) 1127 3187 659 1060 229 2511 3299 7448 2486 22008
V2 (GG 20) 1127 3383 524 985 252 2551 3615 7598 2415 22452
V3 (GJG 31) 1127 3108 566 1063 336 2204 3124 6971 2816 21314
V4 (TG 26) 1118 3952 546 1111 445 2765 2577 7685 3060 23258
Years
2015 1234 2802 591 920 245 2351 3201 7511 2531 21386
2016 1020 3628 546 1121 334 2497 3387 7034 2740 22307

85
Heliothermal units (HTU) accumulated during each phase of groundnut as
attended by different dates of sowing, cultivars and year are shown in (Table 4.4)
Results revealed that the under different dates of sowing, accumulated HTU from
sowing to physiological maturity was maximum (22593 0C days hrs.) under second
date of sowing D2 (15th February) followed by (22318 0C days hrs.) third date of
sowing D3 (02thMarch) and (20628 0C days hrs.) in first date of sowing (D1-31st
January). Variation in HTU during different phases was similar to that observed in
case of GDD under different dates of sowing. Among the cultivars the accumulated
HTU from sowing to physiological maturity was maximum (23258 0C days hrs.) in
cultivar V4-TG 26 followed by (22452 0C days hrs.) in cultivar V2-GG 20, (22008 0C
days hrs.) in cultivar V1-GG 2 and (21314 0C days hrs.) in cultivar V3-GJG 31.
Between the two years the accumulated HTU was higher (223070C days hrs.) in 2016
than that of 2015 (213860C days hrs.).
4.4 Yield and yield attributing characters
4.4.1 Pod yield
4.4.1.1 Effect of date of sowing
The pod yield of groundnut as affected by different dates of sowing and
variety in 2015 and 2016 along with pooled analysis are presented in (Table 4.5)
Dates of sowing significantly influenced the pod yield during both years and in
pooled data. During 2015 the maximum pod yield (2093 kg ha-1) was recorded under
second date of sowing (15thFebruary) and it was statistically at par with first date of
sowing (31st January)(1927 kg ha-1) and the lowest pod yield (1724kg ha-1) was
recorded under third date of sowing (02nd March). Similar trends were observed
during 2016 also, with slightly higher value of pod yield in comparison to 2015.
Similarly in pooled analysis, also the highest pod yield (2107 kg ha-1) was recorded
86
under second date of sowing which was significantly higher than the pod yield
recorded under first date of sowing (1939kg ha-1) and third date of sowing (1767 kg
ha-1). Pod yield remained in order of D2 > D1 > D3, in both the years and in pooled
data.
From above results, it can be concluded that 15thFebruary sowing date is found
most ideal for getting maximum pod yield of groundnut under middle Gujarat region.
This was due to favorable weather condition encountered by the crop sown on
15thFebruary. The late sown crop encountered higher temperature during reproductive
period, resulting in shortening the duration and accumulation of higher heat units,
resulting lowest pod yield.
4.4.1.2 Effect of varieties
Influence of different varieties on pod yield are presented in (Table 4.5). Pod
yield was significantly influenced by different cultivars during individual years as
well as in pooled analysis. During the year 2015, significantly higher pod yield (2092
kg ha-1) was recorded by the cultivar V2 (GG 20) and it was statistically at par with
cultivar GG 2 (1967 kg ha-1) followed by the cultivar GJG 31 (1834 kg ha-1) and
cultivar TG- 26 (1766 kg ha-1). During 2016 also, significantly highest pod yield
(2110 kg ha-1) was recorded by the cultivar V2 (GG 20) and it was statistically at par
with cultivar GG 2 (2021 kg ha-1) as well as cultivar GJG 31 (1945 kg ha-1). The
lowest yield (1172 kg ha-1) was by the cultivar V4 (GJG 31). In the pooled analysis
significantly highest pod yield (2100 kg ha-1) was recorded by cultivar V2 (GG 20)
and it was at par with cultivar GG 2 (1994 kg ha-1) followed by cultivar GJG 31 (1889
kg ha-1) and cultivar TG 26 (1769 kg ha-1) respectively.
87
Table 4.5: Pod yield, kernel yield, haulm yield and test weight of groundnut as
influenced by dates of sowing and cultivars
Pod yield (kg ha-1) Kernel yield (kg ha-1)

Treatment
2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled
Dates of sowing
D1 (31st January) 1927 1953 1939 1261 1325 1293
D2 (15th February) 2093 2121 2107 1387 1440 1413
D3 (02nd March) 1724 1811 1767 1160 1234 1197
SEm ± 48 56 37 37 34 25
CD at 5% 167 196 115 128 119 78
CV % 10 11 10 11 10 11
Variety
V1 (GG 2) 1967 2021 1994 1283 1347 1315
V2 (GG 20) 2092 2110 2100 1388 1455 1422
V3 (GJG 31) 1834 1945 1889 1269 1297 1283
V4 (TG 26) 1766 1772 1769 1136 1232 1185
SEm± 57 60 41 41 37 27
CD at 5% 166 174 117 119 109 79
CV % 10 10 10 11 9 10
Interaction effect S S
Haulm yield (kg ha-1) Test weight (g)

Treatment
2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled
Dates of sowing
D1 (31st January) 4803 4978 4891 47.5 47.9 47.7
D2 (15th February) 5184 5263 5224 50.1 51.8 50.9
D3 (02nd March) 4265 4684 4475 42.2 43.7 42.9
SEm ± 178 100 102 1.3 1.2 0.9
CD at 5% 619 348 316 4.5 4.3 2.8
CV % 15 8 11 11.3 10.5 10.9
Variety
V1 (GG 2) 4884 5324 5104 49.0 49.2 49.1
V2 (GG 20) 5257 5424 5340 51.4 51.6 51.5
V3 (GJG 31) 4307 4577 4442 41.0 44.8 42.9
V4 (TG 26) 4558 4578 4568 45.0 45.5 45.3
SEm ± 174 137 111 1.6 1.5 1.1
CD at 5% 503 398 314 4.8 4.4 3.1
CV % 12 9 11 12.2 11.0 11.6
Interaction effect NS NS
88
From the above results it can be concluded that cultivars GG 20 and GG 2 are
suitable for getting higher pod yield as compared to other cultivars under middle
Gujarat condition.
4.4.1.3 Interaction of dates of sowing and variety (D x V)
The data on pod yield as influenced by the interaction effect of date of sowing
and variety (D x V) is presented in (Table 4.6). During 2015 significantly highest pod
yield (2293 kg ha-1) was recorded by the treatment D2V3 (GJG 31 sown on 15th
February) which was at par with D1V1, D1V2, D2V1 and D2V2 treatments. The lowest
pod yield (1503 kg ha-1) was recorded by treatment D3V3 i.e GJG 31 sown under late
condition. During 2016 also, significantly highest pod yield (2426 kg ha-1) recorded
by the treatment D2V3 i.e GJG 31 sown on (15th February) which was at par with the
treatment D1V2 and D2V2. Similarly in pooled data the highest pod yield (2360 kg
ha-1) was recorded by the treatment D2V3 which was at par with the cultivar GG 20
sown on second date (D2V2). The lowest yield was also recorded by cultivar GJG 31
(V3) under late sown (D3) condition. Thus cultivar GJG 31 is more sensitive to date of
sowing.
4.4.2 Kernel yield
Variation in kernel yield due to different dates of sowing and variety is
presented in (Table 4.5). Date of sowing significantly influenced the kernel yield
during both years and in pooled data. During 2015 the maximum kernel yield (1387
kg ha-1) was recorded under second date of sowing (15thFebruary) and it was
statistically at par with first date of sowing (31st January)(1261 kg ha-1) and the lowest
pod yield (1160 kg ha-1) was recorded under third date of sowing (02nd March).
Similar trends were observed during 2016 also, with slightly higher values of kernel
yield in comparison to 2015. Similarly in pooled analysis also, the maximum kernel
89
90
yield (1413 kg ha-1) was recorded under second date of sowing (15thFebruary) which
was significantly higher than the kernel yield recorded under first dates of sowing
(31st January) and third date (02nd March). Kernel yield remained in order of D2 > D1
> D3, in both the years and in pooled data.
From above results, it may be concluded that the 15thFebruary sowing date is
found ideal for getting higher kernel yield of groundnut under middle Gujarat region.
This was due to favorable weather condition encountered by the crop sown on
15thFebruary. The late sown crop encountered higher temperature during reproductive
period, resulting in shortening the duration and accumulation of higher heat units,
resulting lowest kernel yield.
(Table 4.5) shows that the kernel yield significantly due to variety under
individual year as well as in pooled basis differed. During 2015 significantly highest
kernel yield (1388 kg ha-1) was recorded by the cultivar GG 20 which was at par with
cultivar GG 2 (1283 kg ha-1) and cultivar GJG 31 (1269 kg ha-1) and the lowest kernel
yield (1136 kg ha-1) recorded by the cultivar TG 26. Similarly during 2016, highest
kernel yield (1455 kg ha-1) was recorded by the cultivar GG 20, which was at par with
cultivar GG 2 (1347 kg ha-1) followed by the cultivars GJG 31 (1297 kg ha-1) and TG
26 (1232 kg ha-1). Pooled results shows that the maximum kernel yield (1422 kg ha-1)
was recorded in cultivar GG 20 followed by the cultivars GG 2 (1315 kg ha-1), GJG
31 (1283 kg ha-1) and TG 26 (1185 kg ha-1).
From the above results it may be concluded that cultivar GG 20 was suitable
for getting maximum kernel yield in comparison to other cultivars.
The kernel yield as influenced by the interaction of dates of sowing and
variety (D x V) is presented in (Table 4.6). Results showed that during 2015,

91
significantly highest kernel yield (1998 kg ha-1) was recorded by the treatment
combination D3V1 and during the second year significantly highest kernel yield (1583
kg ha-1) recorded by the treatment combination (D2V3) which was at par with the
treatment combinations D2V1 (1404 kg ha-1), D1V2 (1476 kg ha-1) and D2V2, (1507 kg
ha-1). Similarly in pooled data, the highest kernel yield (1594 kg ha-1) was recorded by
the treatment combination D2V3 which was at par with the treatment D2V2 (1470 kg
ha-1).
4.4.3 Haulm yield
Variation in haulm yield due to different dates of sowing and variety is
presented in (Table 4.5). Dates of sowing significantly influenced the haulm yield
during both years and in pooled data. During 2015 the maximum haulm yield (5184
kg ha-1) was recorded under the second date of sowing (15thFebruary) and it was
statistically at par with the first date of sowing (31st January) (4803 kg ha-1) and the
lowest haulm yield (4265 kg ha-1) was recorded under third date of sowing (02nd
March). Similar trends were observed during 2016 also, with slightly higher values of
haulm yield in comparison to 2015. Similarly in pooled analysis, the highest haulm
yield (5224 kg ha-1) was recorded under second date of sowing (15thFebruary) which
was significantly higher than the haulm yield recorded under first date of sowing (31st
January)and third date of sowing (02nd March). Haulm yield remained in order of D2 >
D1 > D3, in both the years and in pooled data. From above results, it may be concluded
that significantly highest haulm yield was recorded under 15th February sowing. This
was due to favorable weather condition encountered by the crop sown on
15thFebruary as comparison to late sown crop.
92
Varietal response on haulm yield are presented in (Table 4.5). Haulm yield
was found to differ significantly under different cultivars during individual years as
well as pooled data. The significantly highest haulm yield of 5257, 5424 and 5340 kg
ha-1 was recorded by the cultivar GG 20 during 2015, 2016 and in pooled data
respectively and these were statistically at par with cultivar GG 2. The lowest haulm
yield was recorded by the cultivar GJG 31 during both the years and in pooled data.
From the above results it can be concluded that cultivar GG 20 as well as GG
2 produced higher haulm yield as compared to cultivars GJG 31 and TG 26.
4.4.4 Test weight
Dates of sowing significantly influenced the test weight during both the years
and in pooled data (Table 4.5). During 2015, the maximum test weight (50.1 g) was
recorded under the second date of sowing (15thFebruary) and it was statistically at par
with the first date of sowing (31st January) and the lowest test weight (42.2 g) was
recorded under the third date of sowing (02nd March). Similar trends were observed
during 2016 also, with slightly higher values of test weight in comparison to 2015.
Similarly in pooled analysis also the highest test weight (50.9 g) was recorded under
the second date of sowing (15thFebruary) which was significantly higher than the test
weight recorded under the first date of sowing (31st January) and third date of sowing
(02nd March). Test weight remained in order of D2 > D1 > D3, in both the years and in
pooled data.
From above results, it may be concluded that significantly highest test weight
was recorded under 15thFebruary sowing. This was due to favorable weather
condition encountered by the crop sown on 15thFebruary. Reduction in test weight for
delayed sowing may be? attributed to the lower rate of phloem transport for the
deposition of photosynthate to the sink portion of the plant as the delayed sowing
93
invites higher temperature, it also invites higher rate of photorespiration as a
concomitant effect.
Varietal response on test weight are presented in (Table 4.5). Test weight was
found to differ significantly under different cultivars during individual year as well as
in pooled data. The significantly highest test weight 51.4, 51.6 and 51.5 g were
recorded by the cultivar GG 20 in 2015, 2016 and in pooled data respectively. These
were statistically at par with cultivar GG 2. The lowest test weight were recorded by
the cultivar GJG 31.
From the above results it is concluded that cultivars GG 20 as well as GG 2
gave higher test weight as compared to cultivars V3 and V4.
4.4.5 Shelling percent
Data on shelling percent under different dates of sowing and cultivars are
presented (Table 4.7). The difference in shelling percent due to dates of sowing as
well as due to varieties were found to be non-significant during both years and in
pooled data also.
4.4.6 Harvest index
The harvest index was insignificantly for either dates of sowing or varieties
neither in individual year nor in pooled data (Table 4.7)
4.4.7 Number of mature pod
Variation in number of mature podplant-1 due to different dates of sowing and
variety is presented in (Table 4.7). Dates of sowing significantly influenced the
number of mature podplant-1 during both years and in pooled data. During 2015, the
maximum number of mature podplant-1(16.0) was recorded under second date of

94
sowing (15thFebruary) and it was statistically at par with first date of sowing
(14.8).The lowest number of mature podplant-1(12.4) was recorded under third date of
sowing (02nd March). Similar trends were observed during 2016 also, with slightly
higher number of mature pod plant-1 in comparison to 2015. Similarly, in pooled
results also the highest number of mature pod plant-1 (16.8) was recorded under
second date of sowing which was significantly higher than the number of mature
podplant-1recorded under first date of sowing (15.5) and third date of sowing (13.5).
The number of mature podplant-1remained in order of D2 > D1 > D3, in both the years
and in pooled data.
From above results, it is concluded that significantly highest number of mature
podplant-1is recorded under 15thFebruary sowing. This was due to favorable weather
condition encountered by the sown on 15th February. The late sown crop encountered
higher temperature during reproductive period, resulting in shortening the duration
and accumulation of higher heat units, resulting lowest number of mature pod.
Varietal response on number of mature pod plant-1 are presented in (Table
4.7). Number of mature pod plant-1was found to differ significantly by due to different
cultivars during individual years and in pooled data also. During 2015, the
significantly highest number of mature pod plant-1 (15.7) was recorded in cultivar
GJG 31 and it was statistically at par with cultivar TG 26 (15.2) and significantly
lowest number of mature podplant-1 (12.9) was recorded in cultivar GG 2. During
2016, and in pooled results, significantly highest number of mature pod plant-1(18.6
and 17.2) were recorded under V3 cultivar, whereas significantly lowest number of
mature pod plant-1 recorded by under cultivar GG 2 were (14.5 and 13.7) in 2016 and
pooled analysis respectively. From the above results it is concluded that number of
mature pod plant-1 was higher in cultivar GJG 31 as compared to other cultivars.
95
The data on number of mature pod plant-1 as influenced by the interaction
effects of dates of sowing and variety (D x V) is presented in (Table 4.8). The
significantly highest number of mature podplant-1were observed (19.2, 22.7 and 21.0)
under treatment combination (D2V3) during 2015, 2016 and in pooled results
respectively.
4.4.8 Number of immature pod
The effect of different dates of sowing on number of immature pod plant-1 is
presented in (Table 4.7). The data shows that the number of immature pod plant-1 was
found to vary significantly during both the years and in pooled. The highest number
of immature podplant-1 were recorded under third date of sowing (02thMarch) and it
was statistically at par with first date of sowing (31st January) sowing in both the
years. The lowest number of immature pod plant-1were recorded under 15th February
sown groundnut in 2015, 2016 and in pooled analysis. Number of immature pod
remained in order of D3 > D1 > D2 in both the years as well as in pooled data.
From the above results it is concluded that groundnut sown on 15th February
was lowest number of immature pod, so it is most suitable date for sowing. This was
due to favorable weather condition encountered by the sown on 15th February. The
late sown crop encountered higher temperature during reproductive period, resulting
in shortening the duration and increases number of immature pod.
Varietal response on number of immature pod are presented in (Table 4.7).
Number of immature pod was found to vary significantly under different cultivars
during individual year as well as in pooled data. During 2015, significantly highest
number of immature pod plant-1 was recorded under cultivar TG 26 (6.1) which was
statistically at par with cultivars GJG 31 (5.8) and GG 2 (5.7) and significantly lowest
number of immature podplant-1 was recorded under cultivar GG 20 (4.9). In 2016, the
96
significantly highest number of immature pod plant-1 was recorded under cultivar TG
26(7.9) and lowest number of immature pod plant-1was recorded under cultivar GG
20(5.0). The results of pooled were found non-significant due to dates of sowing.
Table 4.7: Shelling percent, harvest index, number of mature and immature pods of
groundnut as influenced by dates of sowing and cultivars
Shelling per cent Harvest index

Treatment
2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled
Dates of sowing
D1 (31st January) 65 68 66 28.7 28.2 28.5
D2 (15th February) 66 68 67 27.8 28.7 28.2
D3 (02nd March) 67 68 68 29.3 27.9 28.6
SEm ± 1 1 1 0.5 0.9 0.5
CD at 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS
CV % 9 7 8 7.6 12.7 10.4
Variety
V1 (GG 2) 65 67 66 29.0 27.5 28.2
V2 (GG 20) 66 69 67 28.2 28.0 28.1
V3 (GJG 31) 69 67 68 28.9 29.7 29.3
V4 (TG 26) 64 69 67 28.3 27.9 28.1
SEm ± 2 2 1 0.5 0.8 0.7
CD at 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS
CV % 12 12 12 6.9 10.6 8.9
Number of mature pod

Number of immature pod Plant-1
Treatment Plant-1
2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled
Dates of sowing
D1 (31st January) 14.8 16.2 15.5 5.8 6.1 6.0
D2 (15th February) 16.0 17.5 16.8 4.8 5.6 5.2
D3 (02nd March) 12.4 14.6 13.5 6.3 6.9 6.6
SEm ± 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
CD at 5% 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.4
CV % 9.7 10.9 10.4 12.0 15.9 14.3
Variety
V1 (GG 2) 12.9 14.5 13.7 5.7 5.5 5.6
V2 (GG 20) 13.8 14.9 14.3 4.9 5.0 4.9
V3 (GJG 31) 15.7 18.6 17.2 5.8 6.5 6.2
V4 (TG 26) 15.2 16.5 15.8 6.1 7.9 7.0
SEm ± 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4
CD at 5% 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 NS
CV % 9.7 11.2 10.5 15.8 14.9 15.3
Interaction effect S S
97
98
4.4.8.3 Interaction of year and variety (Y x V)
The data on number of immature pod plant-1 as influenced by the interaction
effect of year and variety (Y x V) is presented in (Table 4.9). The significantly more
number of immature podplant-1(7.9) was observed under treatment combination
(Y2V4) and significantly lowest number of immature podplant-1 (4.9) was recorded
under treatment combination (Y1V2).
4.4.9 Weight of mature pod
Variation in weight of mature pod palnt-1 due to different dates of sowing is
presented in (Table 4.10). Dates of sowing significantly influenced on weight of
mature pod palnt-1 during both years and in pooled data. The data shows that the
highest weight of mature pod palnt-1 during 2015 (35.1 g) and 2016 (35.3 g) were
recorded under second date of sowing and it was statistically at par with first date of
sowing and the lowest weight of mature pod palnt-1was recorded under third date of
sowing. Similarly in pooled analysis the highest weight of mature pod palnt-1 (35.2 g)
was recorded under second date of sowing and lowest weight of mature pod palnt-1
(32.7 g) under first date of sowing and (29.5 g) third date of sowing. Weight of
mature pod palnt-1 remained in order of D2 > D1 > D3 in both the years as well as in
pooled data.
From above results, it is concluded that significantly highest weight of mature
pod palnt-1 is recorded under 15th February sowing. This was due to favorable weather
condition encountered by the sown on 15th February. The late sown crop encountered
higher temperature during reproductive period, resulting in lower weight of mature
pod.
99
Influence of different varieties on weight of mature pod palnt-1 are presented in
(Table 4.10). Weight of mature pod palnt-1 was significant influenced by different
cultivars during individual years as well as in pooled analysis. Significantly highest
weight of mature pod palnt-1 was recorded by the cultivar GG 20 during the year 2015
(36.1g) and 2016 (37.6 g) and which was statistically at par with cultivar GG 2.
During first year the lowest weight of mature pod palnt-1 recorded under cultivar GJG
31 (28.1 g) and in second year under cultivar TG 26 (28.9 g).
Similar type of results was found in pooled. Significantly highest weight of
mature pod palnt-1 was recorded under cultivar GG 20 (36.9 g) and the lowest weight
of mature pod palnt-1 was recorded by the cultivar GJG 31 (28.6 g).
From the above results it is concluded that higher weight of mature pod palnt-1
in cultivar GG 20 as compared to other cultivars.
4.4.10 Weight of immature pod
Variation in weight of immature pod palnt-1 due to different dates of sowing
are presented in (Table 4.10). Dates of sowing significantly influenced on weight of
immature pod palnt-1 during both years and in pooled analysis. The highest weight of
immature pod palnt-1were recorded under second date of sowing and it was
statistically at par with first date of sowing in both the years and in pooled analysis.
The lowest weight of immature pod palnt-1 were recorded under (02th March) sown
groundnut in 2015, 2016 and in pooled analysis. Weight of immature pod palnt-1
remained in order of D2 > D1 > D3 in both the years as well as in pooled analysis.
From above results, it is concluded that significantly highest weight of
immature pod palnt-1 is recorded under 15th February sowing.

100
Varietal response on weight of immature pod plant-1 are presented in
(Table 4.10). Weight of immature pod plant-1was found to differ significantly due to
different cultivars during individual years and in pooled analysis also. The
significantly highest weight of immature pod plant-1was recorded under cultivar GG
20(7.8 and 7.5 g) and the lowest weight of immature podplant-1 was observed under
cultivar GJG 31 (5.5 and 5.5 g) during 2015 and in pooled analysis. During the 2016,
significantly highest weight of immature podplant-1 (7.2 g) was recorded under
cultivar GG 20 and it was at par with cultivar TG 26 (6.5 g) and the lowest weight of
immature podplant-1was recorded under cultivar GJG 31(5.5 g).
From the above results it is concluded that the highest weight of immature pod
plant-1 under cultivar GG 20 as compared to other cultivars.
4.4.11 Plant height
Variation in plant height due to different dates of sowing and variety is
presented in (Table 4.10). Dates of sowing significantly influenced the plant height
during both years and in pooled data. During 2015, the maximum plant height (46.9
cm) was recorded under second date of sowing (15thFebruary) and it was statistically
at par with first date of sowing (43.8 cm).The lowest plant height (40.2 cm) was
recorded under third date of sowing. Similar trends were observed during 2016 also,
with slightly higher plant height in comparison to 2015. Similarly, in pooled results
also the highest plant height (48.0 cm) was recorded under second date of sowing
which was significantly higher than the plant height recorded under first date of
sowing (44.7 cm)and third date of sowing (41.4 cm). The plant height remained in
order of D2 > D1 > D3, in both the years and in pooled data.
101
Table 4.10: Weight of mature, immature pods, plant height and number of
branches of groundnut as influenced by dates of sowing and
cultivars
Weight of mature pod Weight of immature pods

Treatment plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g)
2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled
Dates of sowing
D1 (31st January) 32.0 33.4 32.7 6.7 6.4 6.6
D2 (15th February) 35.1 35.3 35.2 7.2 6.9 7.1
D3 (02nd March) 28.6 30.3 29.5 6.0 5.7 5.9
SEm ± 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1
CD at 5% 3.5 2.9 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.4
CV % 12.8 10.4 11.6 13.5 14.2 13.8
Variety (V)
V1 (GG 2) 34.2 36.3 35.2 6.5 6.3 6.4
V2 (GG 20) 36.1 37.6 36.9 7.8 7.2 7.5
V3 (GJG 31) 28.1 29.1 28.6 5.5 5.5 5.5
V4 (TG 26) 29.2 28.9 29.0 6.7 6.5 6.6
SEm ± 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2
CD at 5% 2.4 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.5
CV % 9.1 7.9 8.5 15.7 14.5 15.1
Plant height (cm) No. of branches plant-1

Treatment
2015 2016 Pooled 2015 2016 Pooled
Dates of sowing
D1 (31st January) 43.8 45.6 44.7 7.0 7.5 7.2
D2 (15th February) 46.9 49.1 48.0 7.5 8.2 7.1
D3 (02nd March) 40.2 42.7 41.4 6.6 6.6 6.6
SEm ± 1.4 1.2 0.97 0.1 0.1 0.1
CD at 5% 5.0 4.4 2.99 0.6 0.6 0.4
CV % 13.4 11.1 12.30 11.1 9.4 10.3
Variety
V1 (GG 2) 48.8 50.7 49.7 6.7 7.9 7.3
V2 (GG 20) 45.3 47.2 46.3 8.1 8.4 8.2
V3 (GJG 31) 36.3 39.2 37.8 7.3 7.5 7.4
V4 (TG 26) 44.1 46.1 45.1 6.0 6.1 6.0
SEm ± 1.0 0.95 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1
CD at 5% 3.1 2.7 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.5
CV % 8.6 7.1 7.9 14.6 9.1 12.0
From above results, it can be concluded that significantly maximum plant
height is recorded under 15th February sowing. This was due to favorable weather
102
condition encountered by the crop sown on 15thFebruary as comparison to late sown
crop.
Varietal response on plant height are presented in (Table 4.10). Plant height
was found to differ significantly by due to different cultivars during individual years
and in pooled data. During 2015, the significantly highest plant height (48.8 cm) was
recorded in cultivar GG 2 and significantly lowest plant height (36.3 cm) was
recorded in cultivar GJG 31. During 2016, and in pooled results, significantly highest
plant height (50.7 and 49.7 cm) were recorded under V1 cultivar, whereas
significantly lowest plant height recorded by under cultivar GJG 31 were (39.2 and
37.8 cm) in 2016 and pooled analysis respectively. From the above results it may be
concluded that plant height was maximum in cultivar GG 2 as compared to other
cultivars.
The number of branches plant-1 of groundnut as affected by different dates of
sowing and variety in 2015 and 2016 and pooled analysis are presented in (Table
4.10). Dates of sowing significantly influenced the number of branches plant-1during
both years and in pooled data. During 2015 the maximum number of branches plant-1
(7.5) was recorded under second date of sowing (15thFebruary) and it was statistically
at par with first date of sowing (7.0) and the lowest number of branches plant-1(6.6)
was recorded under third date of sowing (02nd March). Similar trends were observed
during 2016 also, with slightly higher value of number of branches plant-1in
comparison to 2015. Similarly in pooled analysis, also the highest number of branches
plant-1 (7.9) was recorded under second date of sowing which was significantly higher
than the number of branches plant-1 recorded under first date of sowing (7.2) and third
103
date of sowing (6.6). Number of branches plant-1 remained in order of D2 > D1 > D3,
in both the years and in pooled data.
From above results, it can be concluded that 15th February sowing date is
found most ideal for maximum number of branches plant-1of groundnut under middle
Gujarat region. This was due to favorable weather condition encountered by the sown
on 15thFebruary. The late sown crop encountered higher temperature during
vegetative period, resulting in shortening the duration and lower number of branches.
Varietal response on number of branches plant-1 are presented in (Table 4.10).
Number of branches plant-1 was found significant under different cultivars during
individual years and in pooled data. During 2015, significantly highest number of
branches plant-1 (8.1) was recorded under cultivar GG 20 and it was statistically at par
with cultivar GJG 31 (7.3) followed by cultivars GG 2 (6.7) and TG 26 (6.0).
During2016, significantly highest number of branches plant-1was recorded by the
cultivar GG 20 (8.4) which was at par with cultivar GG 2 (7.9) followed by cultivars
GJG 31 (7.5) and TG 26 (6.1). Similarly in pooled results also, the highest number of
branches plant-1was recorded under cultivar GG 20(8.2) followed by cultivars GJG 31
(7.4), GG 2 (7.3) and TG 26 (6.0). From the above results it can be concluded that
number of branches plant-1 was maximum in cultivar GG 20 as compared to other
cultivars.
4.5 Crop weather relationship
The productivity of the crop mainly depends upon the climatic requirement of
the particular crop like groundnut which can grow in the wide range of climatic
conditions, but its productivity is largely depends on the prevailing weather conditions
throughout the life cycle of the groundnut crop. Further, the different weather
104
parameters affect growth and development of crop differently. Therefore, it was
contemplated to have an insight on the effect of different weather parameters and
there by agrometeorological indices for the production of groundnut crop and to
identify the critical phases at which groundnut crop was most sensitive to the effect of
particular weather parameters. The correlation coefficient between pod yield and
weather parameters as well as between the agrometeorological indices are presented
in (Table 4.11).
Table 4.11: Correlation coefficients between phase wise weather parameters and
pod yield of groundnut
Parameters P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
Tmax. -0.20 -0.50* -0.21 0.15 -0.32 -0.36 -0.40 -0.2 0.54**
Tmin. -0.29 -0.48* 0.04 -0.38 -0.38 -0.50* -0.29 -0.35 0.23
Tmean -0.26 -0.49* -0.08 -0.11 -0.28 -0.52** -0.37 -0.32 0.53**
BSS -0.27 -0.11 0.19 0.25 -0.32 -0.44* 0.08 -0.41* 0.51**
RH1 -0.05 0.16 -0.08 -0.09 -0.26 0.11 -0.31 -0.07 -0.16
RH2 0.53** 0.28 -0.42* -0.26 -0.48* -0.00 -0.17 -0.29 -0.49*
Rhmean 0.27 0.22 -0.17 -0.20 -0.39 0.03 -0.27 -0.24 -0.40*
VP1 -0.35 -0.59** -0.31 -0.35 -0.46* -0.30 -0.52** -0.32 -0.12
VP2 0.41* -0.12 -0.47* -0.28 -0.42* -0.18 -0.43* -0.27 -0.42*
Vpmean -0.19 -0.42* -0.40* -0.32 -0.44* -0.24 -0.50* -0.30 -0.31
Rainfall .a 0.20 .a 0.14 -0.28 -0.17 -0.14 0.32 -0.41*
GDD 0.33 -0.04 0.33 0.30 -0.11 0.27 0.54** 0.07 -0.14
HTU 0.28 -0.22 0.42* 0.11 -0.17 -0.16 0.52** 0.06 -0.10
PTU 0.33 -0.07 0.29 0.23 -0.15 0.22 0.52** 0.05 -0.15
*Significant at 0.01 % level, ** Significant at 0.05 % level
Where P1 (from sowing to emergence), P2 (from emergence to first flower opening), P3 (from
first flower opening to 50 % flowering), P4 (from 50 % flowering to peg initiation), P5
(from peg initiation to 100 % flowering), P6 (from 100 % flowering to pod initiation), P7 (from
pod initiation to pod development), P8 (from pod development to pod maturity), P9 (from pod
maturity to physiological maturity) phase
The results induced that the pod yield was negatively correlated with
maximum temperature during most of the phenophases except during maturity period.
105
However, the significant negative correlation were obtained with Tmax. during P2
(emergence to first flower initiation) phase. Tmax. during this was between 30.8 and
37.2 0C. Thus the higher Tmax. (>340C) during early vegetative period was not
suitable for groundnut. Higher day temperature Tmax. during P2phase adversely
affected the plant height, LAI, number of branches etc. which ultimately contributed
to lower pod yield. Prasad et al. (2000) reported that the high temperature (>380C)
from starting of flowering to maturity reduces total pod yield and yield components of
groundnut. The significant positive correlation between pod yield and Tmax. during
maturity period P9 (pod maturity to physiological maturity) suggest that during this
period Tmax. varied between 38.7 and 42.80C, pod maturity requires Tmax. more
than 40.7 0C for proper seed development which resulted in higher test weight
resulting in higher pod yield of groundnut. The pod yield was negatively correlated
with minimum temperature during most of the phenophases except during maturity
period. However, the significant negative correlation was obtained with Tmin. during
P2 (emergence to first flower initiation) and P6 (100% flowering to pod initiation)
phase. Minimum temperature during this varied between (14.3 and 20.00C) and (19.1
and 24.30C). Thus the higher Tmin. (>170C) during P2 (emergence to first flower
initiation) and (>210C) during P6 (100% flowering to pod initiation) phase was not
suitable for groundnut. Higher night temperature Tmin. during P2 and P6 phase
adversely affected the flowering., which ultimately contributed to lower pod yield.
The high minimum temperature during crop growth period influenced the yield
contributing characters and finally the pod yield Karunakar et al. (2002).The results
revealed that the pod yield was negatively correlated with mean temperature during
most of the phenophases except during maturity period. However, the significant
negative correlation was obtained with Tmean during P2 (emergence to first flower
initiation) phase. Tmean during this was between 22.9 and 28.6 0C. Similarly
106
significant and negative correlation was obtained with Tmean during P6 (100%
flowering to pod initiation) phase. Tmean during P6 between 23.7 and 30.30C.Thus
the higher Tmean. were (>25.70C) and (>270C) during P2 and P6 phase was not
suitable for groundnut. Higher Tmean during P2 and P6 phase adversely affected the
plant height, LAI, number of branches etc. which ultimately contributed to lower pod
yield. The significant and positive correlation between pod yield and Tmean during
maturity period P9 (pod maturity to physiological maturity) suggest that during this
period Tmean varied between 32.7 and 35.10C, pod maturity requires Tmean. more
than 33.90C for proper seed development which resulted in higher test weight
resulting in higher pod yield of groundnut. Patel et al. (2010) reported that the mean
temperature during pod development phase shows significant positive correlation with
pod yield.
The pod yield was negatively correlated with bright sunshine hours (BSS)
during most of the phenophases except during P3, P4, P7 and P9 phases. However, the
significant negative correlation was obtained with BSS during P6 (100% flowering to
pod initiation) phase. BSS during this phases were between 8.6 and 10.7 hrs.
Similarly significant and negative correlation was obtained with BSS during P8 (pod
development to pod maturity) phase. BSS during P8 between 9.8 and 11.0 hr. Thus the
higher BSS varied between >9.6 hrs. and >10.4hrs. during P6 and P8 phase was not
suitable for groundnut. Higher BSS during P6and P8 phase adversely affected the pod
yield. Bhatia et al. (1997) found that the initiation of flowering and start of the pod
development stages were most susceptible to variation in photoperiod. The significant
and positive correlation between pod yield and BSS during maturity period P9 (pod
maturity to physiological maturity) suggest that during this period (BSS) varied
between 8.0 and 11.3 hrs. pod maturity requires BSS more than 9.6 hrs. for higher pod
yield of groundnut.
107
The significant and positive correlation between pod yield and afternoon
relative humidity RH2 during P1 (sowing to emergence) phase suggest that during this
period RH2 varied between 28.0 and 48.8 per cent. Afternoon relative humidity
requires more than 38.4 per cent for higher pod yield of groundnut. However, the
significant negative correlation was obtained with RH2 during P3 (first flower
initiation to 50 % flowering) phase. RH2 during this was between 17.0 and 41.67 %.
Similarly significant and negative correlation was obtained with Tmean during P5 (peg
initiation to 100 % flowering) and P9 (pod maturity to physiological maturity) phases.
RH2 during P5 between 12 and 68 % and P9 between 27 and 53%. Thus the higher
RH2 were (>27.8%), (>40%) and (>40%) during P3, P5 and P9 phases was not suitable
for groundnut. Rani and Reddy (2008) also, observed that increase in afternoon
relative humidity (51.5-84.0 % and 47.4 -85.7 %) during pod set and seed fill phase
influenced growth, yield and yield attributes of soybean.
The results induced that the pod yield was negatively correlated with morning
vapour pressure VP1 during all the phenophases. The significant negative correlation
were obtained with VP1 during P2 (emergence to first flower initiation), P5 (peg
initiation to 100 % flowering) and P7 (pod initiation to pod development) phases. VP1
during this phases were between (10.6 and 14.9 mm of Hg), (9.1 and 24.5mm of Hg),
(21.1 and 24.4mm of Hg). The significant and positive correlation between pod yield
and afternoon vapour pressure VP2 during P1 (sowing to emergence) phase suggest
that during this period VP2 varied between 10.3 and 13.8mm of Hg. Afternoon vapour
pressure VP2 requires more than 12.5mm of Hg for higher pod yield of groundnut
during sowing to emergence phase. However, the significant negative correlation was
obtained with VP2 during P3 (first flower initiation to 50 % flowering) phase. VP2
during this was between 8.1 and 15.3 mm of Hg. Similarly significant and negative
correlation was obtained with VP2 during P5 (peg initiation to 100 % flowering), P7
108
(pod initiation to pod development) and P9 (pod maturity to physiological maturity)
phases. VP2 during P5 between 6.0 and 22.6 mm of Hg, P7 between 10.3 to 17.9 mm
of Hg and P9 between 16.1 and 21.3 mm of Hg. Thus the higher VP2 during P3
(>11.7), P5 (>14.3), P7 (>14.1) and P9 (>18.7) phases was not suitable for groundnut.
Pod yield was also negatively correlated with mean vapour pressure VPmean during
all the phenophases. The significant negative correlation were obtained with VPmean
during P2 (emergence to first flower initiation), P3 (first flower initiation to 50%
flowering) P5 (peg initiation to 100 % flowering) and P7 (pod initiation to pod
development) phases. VPmean during these phases were between (10.6 and 14.7 mm
of Hg), (11.3 and 17.3mm of Hg), (8.3 and 21.8mm of Hg) and (13.4 and 19.7mm of
Hg).
The significant and positive correlation between pod yield and growing degree
days GDD 0C day only during P7 (pod initiation to pod development) phase suggest
that during this period GDD varied between 285 and 4110C day. GDD requires more
than 3480C day for higher pod yield of groundnut during pod initiation to pod
development phase. Similarly, the significant and positive correlation between pod
yield and heliothermal units HTU during P3 (first flower initiation to 50% flowering)
and P7 (pod initiation to pod development) phase suggest that during this period HTU
varied between (382 and 9220C day hrs) and (2577 and 4175 0C day hrs). HTU
requires more than 6520C day hrs. and 33760C day hrs. for higher pod yield of
groundnut during P3 and P7 phase. Also The significant and positive correlation
between pod yield and photothermal units PTU during P7 (pod initiation to pod
development) phase suggest that during this period PTU varied between 3655 and
5196 0C day hrs. PTU requires more than 44250C day hrs. for higher pod yield of
groundnut during pod initiation to pod development phase. Meena and Dahama
109
(2004) also, reported that the pod yield was positively correlated with heliothermal
units HTU and photothermal units PTU from flower initiation to maturity.
4.6 CROPGRO-peanut (DSSAT v 4.6) model simulation results
4.6.1 Genetic coefficient
Crop genetic input data, which explains how the life cycle of a cultivar
respond to its environment, are not usually available and therefore these are derived
interactively using Hunt's method (Hunt., 1993). This involved determining the values
of the phenology coefficients initially and then the values of the coefficients
describing growth and grain development. Minimum crop performance data set are
required for those calculations include days to anthesis, days to first pod formation,
days to physiological maturity, kernal yield, pod yield haulm yield, leaf area and
harvest index. The procedure for determining genetic coefficients involved in running
the model using a range of values of each coefficient, in the order indicated above,
until the desired level of agreement between simulated and observed values are
reached. Interactions for the coefficients were stopped when the agreement reached
±10 %. The genetic coefficients derived data for groundnut cultivars GG 2, GG 20,
GJG 31 and TG 26 based on 2015 field experimental data at Anand presented
(Table 4.12) and validated with 2016 data.
For the present study the genetic coefficients for groundnut cultivars GG 2,
GG 20, GJG 31 and TG 26 were developed as per Hunt’s method.
110
Table 4.12: Genetic coefficients for cultivars GG 2, GG 20, GJG 31 and TG 26
Parameter GG-2 GG-20 GJG-31 TG-26

CSDL 11.84 11.84 11.84 11.84
PPSEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EM-FL 19.5 19.5 18.5 18.5
FL-SH 11.0 10.0 8.0 11.0
Fl-SD 20.0 19.0 18.0 18.0
SD-PM 40.00 39.00 35.00 36.00
FL-LF 89.00 87.00 80.00 80.00
LFMAX 1.50 1.50 1.48 1.40
SLAVR 270 260 240 240
SIZLF 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
XFRT 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.80
WTPSD 0.155 0.200 0.200 0.200
SFDUR 24.0 22.0 24.0 22.0
SDPDV 1.46 1.65 1.46 1.55
PODUR 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
THRSH 76.0 74.0 74.0 80.0
SDPRO .270 .270 .270 .270
SDLIP .510 .510 .510 .510
Description of parameter coefficients
Parameter Description of parameter coefficients controlling development

aspects
CSDL Critical Short Day Length below which reproductive
development progresses with no day length effect (for short day
plants) (hours)
PPSEN Slope of the relative response of development to photoperiod
with time (positive for short day plants) (1/hours)
EM-FL Time between plant emergence and flower appearance (R1)
FL-SH Time between first flower and first pod (R3) (photothermal days)
Fl-SD Time between first flower and first seed (R5) (photothermal days)
SD-PM Time between first seed (R5) and physiological maturity(R7)
(photothermal days)
FL-LF Time between first flower (R1) and end of leaf expansion
(photothermal days)
LFMAX Maximum Leaf photosynthesis rate at 30°c, 350 vpm CO2 and
high light (mgCO2/m2-S)
SLAVR Specific leaf area of cultivar under standard standard growth
condition (cm2/g)
SIZLF Maximum size of full leaf (three leaflets) (cm2)
XFRT Maximum fraction of daily growth that is partitioned to seed +
shell
WTPSD Maximum weight per seed (g)
SFDUR Seed filling duration for pod cohort at standard growth conditions
(photothermal days)
SDPDV Average seed per pod under standard growing conditions (#/pod)
PODUR Time required for cultivar to reach final pod load under optimal
conditions (photothermal days)
111
4.6.2 Days to anthesis
The observed and simulated value of days taken to anthesis (DAS) under
different dates of sowing and cultivars of groundnut are presented in (Table- 4.13) and
Fig. 4.6.1 (a). The results revealed that the observed days to anthesis under different
dates of sowing were 32 to 35 DAS, while the simulated days were 34 to 38 days with
deviation ranging between 3.6 to 5.5 percent. The lowest deviation was observed in
second dates of sowing i.e 15th February. In case of different cultivars close
simulation is obtained i.e the observed days to anthesis were 34-35 DAS, while model
simulated 35-36 days with deviation ranging between 3.9 to 4.9 per cent. The model
have been slightly overestimated days to anthesis Fig. 4.7.1 (a). The average error as
computed by r, MAE, MBE, RMSE and PE were0.94, 0.11, 0.11, 1.0 and 2.4
respectively indicating a fairly good simulation (Table 4.13). Similar result have been
reported by Kaur and Hundal (1999).
4.6.3 Days to first pod initiation
The observed and simulated days taken to first pod initiation (DAS) under
different dates of sowing and cultivars are shown in (Table-4.13) and depicted in Fig.
4.6.1 (b). It is found that the model simulated days to pod initiation were very close to
the observed one under different dates of sowing the observed days to first pod
initiation were 52-57 days, while the simulated values were 48-53 days with deviation
ranging between 6.2 to 7.3 per cent. Among the cultivars close simulation is obtained
i.e the observed days to first pod initiation were 53-55 DAS, while model simulated
50-51 days with deviation ranging between 6.1 to 7.4 per cent. The model have been
slightly underestimated days to first pod initiation Fig. 4.6.1. (b).The average error as
computed by r, MAE, MBE, RMSE and PE were 0.98, 0.30, -0.30, 2.61 and 4.80,
respectively indicating a fairly good simulation (Table 4.13).
112
4.6.4 Days to physiological maturity
The observed and simulated days taken to physiological maturity (DAS) under
different dates of sowing and cultivars are shown in (Table-4.13) and depicted in Fig.
4.6.1 (c). It is found that the model simulated days to physiological maturity were
very close to the observed one under different dates of sowing, the observed days to
physiological maturity were 95-103 days, while the simulated values were 95-99 days
with deviation ranging between 0.2 to 5.9 per cent. Among the cultivars close
simulation is obtained i.e the observed days to physiological maturity were 99-102
DAS, while model simulated 95-99 days with deviation ranging between 0.5 to 4.8
per cent. The model have underestimated days to physiological maturity under most
of the treatments except third date of sowing and cultivar GG 2 Fig. 4.6.1 (c). The
average error as computed by r, MAE, MBE, RMSE and PE were 0.61, 0.27, -0.27,
2.55 and 2.55 respectively. The results are in good agreement with the findings of
Guled et al. (2012) for days to physiological maturity in groundnut as simulated by
PNUTGRO model.
The comparison between observed and simulated value of max. LAI under
different dates of sowing and cultivars of groundnut are presented in (Table 4.13) and
Fig 4.6.1 (d). The results revealed that the observed value of max. LAI under different
dates of sowing were 4.3 to 5.5 per cent, while the simulated value were 4.5 to 4.7 per
cent with deviation ranging between 2.6 to 13.9 per cent. The lowest deviation was
observed in third dates of sowing i.e 02nd March. In case of different cultivars
observed value to max. LAI were 4.1 to 5.6 %, while model simulated 4.2 to 5.0%
with deviation ranging between 4.6 to 12.6 per cent. The model was found to
overestimate the maximum LAI under first date of sowing and for cultivars GG 2 and
GJG 31 Fig. 4.6.1 (d). The statistical test criteria computed by r, MAE, MBE, RMSE
and PE were 0.47, 0.00, 0.00, 0.46 and 9.58, respectively.
113
114
115
4.6.6 Pod yield
The highest pod yield (2123 kg ha-1) was observed under second date of
sowing (15th February) followed by (1953 kg ha-1) first date of sowing (31st January)
and (1811 kg ha-1) third date of sowing (D3-02nd March), while model also shows
similar trend, the highest pod yield simulated (2348 kg ha-1) under second date of
sowing (15th February)followed by (2184 kg ha-1) first date of sowing (31st January)
and(1614 kg ha-1) third date of sowing (02nd March) with deviation ranging between
(9.4 and 12.1 %) (Table 4.14). In case of different cultivars observed value to pod
yield were 1772 to 2110 kg ha-1, while model simulated 1853 to 2285 kg ha-1 with
deviation ranging between 2.8 to 6.4 per cent (Table 4.14). The average error as
computed by r value was 0.85, MAE was found 19.38, while RMSE was recorded as
171.74. MBE described the direction of the error bias and was found to be 19.38. The
positive sign suggested the overestimation of the pod yield by the model. The PE was
8.75. The evaluation of the model on an overall basis revealed that the simulation
performance of the model in respect of pod yield was found good with an accepted
level. Similar results were obtained by Ujinwal and Patel (2008) and Pandey et al.
(2001) by PNUTGRO and CROPGRO model for kharif groundnut.
4.6.7 Kernel yield
The observed and simulated value to kernel yield under different dates of
sowing and cultivars are shown in (Table 4.14) and depicted in Fig.-4.6.2 (b). It is
found that the model simulated value to kernel yield were very close to the observed
one under different dates of sowing. The observed value to kernel yield were 1234-
1439 kg ha-1, while the simulated values were 1350-1580 kg ha-1 with deviation
ranging between 9.0 to 10.0 per cent. Among the cultivars close simulation is
obtained i.e the observed value of kernel yield were 1232-1455 kg ha-1, while model
simulated 1396-1556 kg ha-1 with deviation ranging between 7.0 to 13.3 per cent. The
116
model have overestimated value to kernel yield Fig. 4.6.2. (b). The average error as
computed by r, MAE, MBE, RMSE and PE were 0.96, 10.26, 10.26, 99.33 and 6.77,
respectively indicating a fairly good simulation (Table 4.14).
4.6.8 Haulm yield
The observed and simulated value to haulm yield under different dates of
sowing and cultivars are shown in (Table-4.14) and depicted in Fig.-4.6.2 (c). It was
found that the model simulated value of haulm yield were very close to the observed
one under different dates of sowing the observed value to haulm yield were 4684-
5263 kg ha-1, while the simulated values were 3959-4711 kg ha-1 with deviation
obtained i.e the observed value of haulm yield were 4576-5423 kg ha-1, while model
simulated 3868-4706 kg ha-1 with deviation ranging between 11.7 to 15.6 per cent.
The model have underestimated value to haulm yield Fig. 4.6.2 (c). The average error
as computed by r value was 0.96 and MAE was found 57.50, while RMSE was
recorded as 500.84. MBE described the direction of the error bias and was found to be
-57.50. The negative sign suggested the underestimation of the haulm yield by the
model. The PE was 10.6 %.
4.6.9 Harvest index
The highest harvest index (28.7) was found under second date of sowing
(15thFebruary) followed by (28.3) first date of sowing (31stJanuary) and (28.0) third
date of sowing (02ndMarch) and same trend in simulated value, highest harvest index
simulated under (38.8) second date of sowing followed by (34.4) first date of sowing
and (34.0) third date of sowing with deviation ranging between (21.1 to35.5 %)
(Table 4.14). Among the cultivars observed value to harvest index were 27.5-29.7,
while model simulated 34.0-37.3 with deviation ranging between 17.6 to 30.6 per
cent. (Table 4.14). The average errors as computed by r, MAE, MBE and RMSE were
0.23, 0.63, 0.63 and 5.72, respectively. The PE was 20.20. It is presumed that, the
value of PE exceeds there was no perfect matching between simulated and observed
117
118
value. The overall results showed that model overestimated harvest index in
all the treatments Fig. 4.6.2 (d), however trend between measured and simulated was
same.
4.7 Sensitivity analysis of CROPGRO-peanut model
Simulation models provide a scientific approach to study the impact of climate
change on agricultural production. Sensitivity test of the crop simulation model is the
process by which various input parameters are evaluated with regards to their
importance relative to simulation relations. IPCC (2014) has projected increase in
global mean temperature of 1.8 to 4°C by 2100. For Indian region also 1-4°C
increases in temperature has been reported by Krishna Kumar et al. 2011. Under
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP, 4.5) the temperature is reported to
increase by 1.1 to 2.6°C and CO2 concentration is projected to increase upto 600 ppm.
Looking to the projected climate change scenario, the impact of change in climatic
parameters on pod yield of groundnut cultivars were studied by increasing or
decreasing maximum and minimum air temperature from -2 to +3°C and
concentration of carbon dioxide was increased to 450, 500 and 550 ppm. The
combined effect of elevated maximum temperature and CO2 (1+450, 2+500, 3+550)
and elevated minimum temperature and CO2 (1+450, 2+500, 3+550) on pod yield of
groundnut were also studied. The negative temperature was chosen to take into
account the year to year variation in temperature. The model simulated results with
altered weather was compared with base yield. The base or reference yield for all
selected cultivars under study was simulated by running the CROPGRO-peanut model
with daily normal weather data set. One variable at a time was modified and it’s effect
was studied on yield of cultivars. The potential condition was assumed with congenial
weather and adequate management practices. The present study was carried out
mainly to establish the sensitivity of CROPGRO-peanut model in relation to pod yield
of various cultivars of groundnut affected by individual weather parameters as well as
combination with others.

119
120
4.7.1 Effects of maximum temperature
The effects of altered maximum air temperature (-2 to +3°C) on simulated pod
yield of four cultivars of groundnut under optimal date of sowing (D2-February 15)
was compared with base yield (simulated by model under daily normal weather data
set) and its per cent change from base yield are presented in (Table 4.15) and
represented in Fig. 4.7.1.
Sensitivity of CROPGRO-peanut model simulated pod yield (Table 4.15)
shows that with increasing in maximum temperature from 1 to 3°C, a gradual decrease
in yield was observed, ranging from 1818 to 1317 kg ha-1 against the base yield of
2160 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 2, ranging from 1787 to 1173 kg ha-1 against the base
yield of 2164 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 20, ranging from 2007 to 1423 kg ha-1 against the
base yield of 2513 kg ha-1 in cultivar GJG 31 and from 1755 to 1088 kg ha-1 against
the base yield of 2086 kg ha-1 in cultivar TG 26 under optimal date of sowing (D2-
February 15). While the decrease in maximum temperature from -1 to -2, increase the
yield was observed ranging from 2518 to 2606 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 2, from 2385 to
2890 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 20, from 2975 to 3301 kg ha-1 in cultivar GJG 31 and
2344 to 2617 kg ha-1 in cultivar TG 26 under optimal date of sowing (D2-February
15). The highest percent change in yield over base yield due to change of maximum
temperature was recorded obtained in cultivar GG 20 (+3 to -46%) followed by cv.
TG 26 (+25 to -48%), cv. GJG 31 (+31 to -43%) Fig. 4.7.1 in all cultivars. Such
behaviuor of the model was mainly due to reduction in duration of anthesis and grain
filling with rise in ambient temperature and vice versa. Boote et al. (1989) also stated
that the elevated maximum temperature decreased pod yield of groundnut
significantly. Overall results showed that elevated maximum temperature decreased
pod yield significantly and reduced temperature increased the pod yield in all
cultivars.
121
122
4.7.2 Effects of minimum temperature
The simulated pod yield of four cultivars of groundnut due to increase (1 to 3
°C) and decrease (-1 to -2 °C) of minimum temperature presented in (Table 4.15) the
results shows that with decrease in the minimum temperature from -1 to -2°C, the
simulated pod yield increased from 2267 to 2289 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 2, from 2294
to 2328 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 20, from 2598 to 2798 in cultivar GJG 31 and 22148 to
22194 kg ha-1 in cultivar TG 26 under optimal date of sowing 15th February. When,
the minimum temperature was increased from 1 to 3°C, the simulated pod yield
decreased from 2336 to 1908 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 2, from 1968 to 1848 kg ha-1 in
cultivar GG 20, from 2261 to 2115 in cultivar GJG 31 and 1851 to 1782 kg ha-1 in
cultivar TG 26. The per cent change in pod yield was highest (+11 to -16%) in
cultivar GJG 31, followed by +8 to -15 in cultivar GG 20 and + 6 to -12 % in GG 2
Fig. 4.7.2. The result of simulated yield when examined in relation to minimum
temperature indicated decrease in yields with increase in temperature above that
corresponding to potential conditions in all cultivar. But the magnitude of change
from base yields in terms of percentage was more than corresponding to the preceding
level in all the increased level of minimum temperature. This type of behaviour shown
by the crops might be due to dual effects of higher rate of respiration during night
time resulted in to comparatively higher loss of photosynthates than that was occurred
during day time due to increased maximum temperature and differential reduction in
crop duration of different cultivars. Paradoxically, the lower minimum temperature
increased the pod yield in the all cultivars, but not in the same. Similar effects of
increased and decreased temperature on groundnut yield have been reported by Rao
et al. (2011).
123
124
125
4.7.3 Effects of elevated carbon dioxide (CO2)
The data pertaining to the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) on simulated pod
yield of groundnut cultivars and presented in (Table 4.15) and the per cent change
depicted in Fig. 4.7.3. The results show that with increase in carbon dioxide from 450
to 550 ppm resulted in increase in the pod yield from 2495 to 2935 kg ha-1 in cultivar
GG 2, from 2581 to 2994 kg ha-1 in cultivar GG 20, from 2856 to 3112 in cultivar
GJG 31 and 2365 to 2948 kg ha-1 in cultivar TG 26. The percentage change over base
yield was recorded highest (41%) in cultivar (V4-TG 26) followed by (38%) in
cultivar GG 20, (37%) in cultivar GG 2 and (23%) in cultivar GJG 31 Fig. 4.7.3. This
clearly shows that elevated concentration of CO2 had a significant and positive impact
on the pod yield of various groundnut cultivars. Ramaraja et al. (2010) also reported
that the level of CO2 enrichment had increased the yield compared to normal level of
CO2.
4.7.4 Combined effects of maximum temperature and carbon dioxide
The data pertaining to the combined effect of maximum temperature and
carbon dioxide on simulated pod yield of groundnut cultivars is presented in
(Table 4.16) and depicted in Fig. 4.7.4. the sensitivity results shows that with increase
in maximum temperature 1°C, combined with increase in CO2 concentration upto 450
ppm, the pod yield increased in all cultivars, the highest (25%) being in GG 20
followed by 20% in GG 2 and 20% in GJG 31. However, at increase of maximum
temperature 2°C and corresponding increase in level of CO2 at 500 ppm, adverse
effect of maximum temperature was compensated with positive effect of CO2
concentration as a result net effects are very marginal (-1 to 5 %) across the cultivars.
Further increases in temperature (+3°C) with corresponding increase of CO2 at 550
ppm, resulted in adverse effect on groundnut. The decrease in yield was maximum
(-17%) in TG 26 followed by -16 % in GJG 31 and -15 % in GG 20.
126
127
128
129
4.7.5 Combined effects of minimum temperature and carbon dioxide
The data pertaining to the combined effect of minimum temperature and
carbon dioxide on simulated pod yield of groundnut cultivars is presented in (Table
4.16) and percent change is depicted in Fig. 4.7.5. The results shows that the adverse
impact of higher minimum temperature are well compensated by the corresponding
increasing level of CO2 and ultimately resulted in higher yield. At elevated CO2 of
450 ppm + 10 C minimum temperature, the increase the pod yield was highest (74 %)
in GG 2 followed by 69 % in GG 20 and 52 % in TG 26. However, when minimum
temperature was further increased with corresponding elevated CO2 concentration, the
net impact was still positive. even with increases in minimum temperature by 30 C at
CO2 concentration of 550 ppm, the net impact was positive ranging from 64 % in
cultivar GG 2 to 33 % in cultivar TG 26.
130
131
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1. General
This chapter describes brief and precise summary of the procedures and
techniques followed, findings achieved and conclusions drawn through the
study entitled “Calibration and validation of CROPGRO–peanut (DSSAT v.
4.6) model for summer groundnut and sensitivity analysis to climate change in
middle Gujarat”. The study was carried out for purposes of simulation of
phenology, growth and yield of four different groundnut cultivars (viz. V1-GG
2, V2-GG 20, V3-GJG 31 and V4-TG 26), sown under three different dates of
sowing (viz, D1-31st January, D2-15th February and D3-02nd March).
5.2 Objectives and methodology
The study was carried out with the broad objectives of simulation of
four groundnut cultivars (viz. V1-GG 2, V2-GG 20, V3-GJG 31 and V4-TG 26)
phenology, growth and yield attributes after calibrating the required genetic
coefficients for Anand (Gujarat) under varied environmental conditions created
through three different dates of sowing (viz., D1-31st January, D2-15th February
and D3-02nd March).
5.2.1 Experimental details
The field experimental data generated during summerseasons of 2015
and 2016 through field experiment laid out in split plot design with four
replications on loamy sand soils of the Plot No. A-17, Agronomy Farm, B. A.
College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand were used for
calibration and validation of model.The main treatments were three dates of

Summary and Conclusions
sowing (viz. D1-31st January, D2-15th February and D3-02nd March and the sub
plot treatments were four groundnut cultivars (viz.viz. V1-GG 2, V2-GG 20, V3-
GJG 31 and V4-TG 26). For recording growth attributing characters visual
observations like number of days taken for attainment of each phenophase was
recorded and for recording the crop growth observations viz. plant height (cm),
number of branches, leaf area/green leaf area, biomass (green/dry biomass)
root, stem and leaf, the plant samples were uprooted from the border row of
each plot of second replication. The samples were collected at 15 days interval
after sowing till the harvest of the pods. observation of harvesting time like test
weight, number of mature pod per plant, number of immature pod per plant,
number of branches per plant, pod yield, haulm yields etc., of individual year
and pooled over the seasons were subjected to statistical analysis to ascertain
the best treatment combination resulting in high yields.
5.2.2 Calibration and validation
In the present investigation genetic coefficientsof groundnut cultivars
GG 2, GG 20, GJG 31 and TG 26 was calibrated using 2015 field experimental
data (the genetic coefficients were develop as per Hunt’s method)and validated
with 2016 field experimental data in summer season of Anand condition. For
purposes of determination of genetic coefficients, the model was run several
times using a range of values of each coefficient in the sequential order of the
crop growth events and parameters viz., days to anthesis, days to first pod
formation, days to physiological maturity, kernal yield, pod yield, haulm yield
etc., the desired level of agreement between simulated and observed values of
111
crop growth, development and phenology was reached. Comparisons were
made between the model simulated and observed growth and yield
parameters.Validation of the model was done using different test criteria
(summary, difference and descriptive measures). Mean absolute error (MAE),
mean bias error (MBE) and root mean square error (RMSE) were the difference
measures, which located and quantified the errors. Error percent, correlation
coefficient were also carried out to express the deviation in simulated values
from those observed.
5.2.3 Sensitivity analysis of the CROPGRO model
The sensitivity analysis of the model were studied with respect to the
selected weather parameters were), maximum and minimum air temperature (-2
to + 3 0C) concentration of carbon dioxide (450, 500 and 550 ppm) and
combined of maximum temperature + CO2 as well as minimum temperature +
CO2.
5.3 Summary of the results
5.3.1 Periodical plant observations
5.3.1.1 Plant height
Plant height under different treatments increases continuously upto 75
days after sowing (DAS), after that there was not major increase in plant height
in any of treatment. At 15 DAS the plant height was (4 to 5 cm) which
increases to (25 to 45 cm) at 75 DAS under different treatments during both
years. The maximum plant height was observed in (15th February) sowing
followed by (31st January) and (D3-02nd March) sowing during the year 2015
112
and 2016. Among the cultivar, during 2015 and 2016 the maximum plant
height was recorded in cultivar V1 (GG 2) (49 and 50 cm) and lowest in cultivar
V3 (GJG 31) (36 and 39 cm) cultivars. The rate of increased in plant height was
maximum during 45 to 75 DAS. In generally, the plant height was more in
2016 as compared to 2015.
5.3.1.2 Number of branches
The number of branches plant-1 under all the treatments was increases
from 15 to 75 DAS, after that there was no major increase in number of
branches in any of the treatment. The maximum number of branches plant-1
was observed in the second date of sowing (6 to 9 plant-1) followed by first date
of sowing (5 to 7 plant-1) and third date of sowing (5 to 6 plant-1) under both
the years. Among the verities, the maximum number of branches plant-1 were
recorded in cultivars V2-GG 20 (9 plant-1) and lowest in V4-TG 26 (6 plant-1)
under both years.
5.3.1.4 Leaf area index
The LAI was higher under second date of sowing D2 (15th February) (5
to 6) in all the treatments and both the years in comparison to D1 (31st January)
(4 to 5) and D3 (02nd March) (4 to 5) sowing. Among the cultivars maximum
LAI peak was observed in cultivar V2-GG 20 (5.81 and 5.84) followed by V4-
TG 26 (5.72 and 5.94) in year 2015 and 2016 respectively, as compared to
other date of sowing and cultivars.
113
5.3.1.5 Dry matter partitioning
In initial stage (15 DAS) root has significant contribution to dry matter
(20-35 %). Whereas leaf contributed maximum (40-45%) followed by steam
(35-40%). During 30 to 60 DAS leaf and steam contribute about 90-95%. The
contribution of pod starts after 45 DAS, and reaches to its maximum 20% at
105 DAS. During later part of crop growth period 75 to 100 DAS, the
contribution by steam is more than that of leaf under all the treatments. The
contribution of pod was maximum (28 %) under D1 (31stJanuary) date of
sowing followed by D2 (15th February) (27 %) and D3 (02nd March) (21 %)
sowing dates. Among varieties the maximum contribution of pod was observed
(29%) in cultivar V1 (GG2) minimum in cultivar V4 (TG 26) (24%).
Results shows that the accumulated GDD under different dates of
sowing, from sowing to physiological maturity was highest (2265 0C days) in
second date of sowing D2 (15th February) followed by third date of sowing and
in first date of sowing D1 (31st January). It may be noticed that the number of
days taken to physiological maturity was maximum under D1 (31st January)
sown crop but the accumulated GDD was minimum (2096 0C days).In case of
different cultivars accumulation of GDD from sowing to physiological maturity
were more or less remained the same ranged between (2100 ± 160 0C days).
Between two years the accumulated GDD was higher (2236 0C days) in 2016
than that of 2015 (2156 0C days).
114
Accumulated PTU from sowing to physiological maturity was
maximum (28479 0C days hrs.) under second date of sowing followed by
(28394 0C days hrs.) third date of sowing and (first date of sowing (D1-31st
January). Variation in PTU during different phases was similar to that observed
in case of GDD under different dates of sowing. Among the cultivars the
accumulated PTU from sowing to physiological maturity was maximum
(29177 0C days hrs.) in cultivar V3-GJG 31 and lowest in cultivar V4-TG 26.
Between the two years the accumulated PTU was higher (280890C days hrs.) in
2016 than that of 2015.
Under different dates of sowing, accumulated HTU from sowing to
physiological maturity was maximum (22593 0C days hrs.) under second date
of sowing D2 (15th February) followed by (22318 0C days hrs.) third date of
sowing D3 (02th March) and (20628 0C days hrs.) in first date of sowing (D1-
31st January). Variation in HTU during different phases was similar to that
observed in case of GDD under different dates of sowing. Among the cultivars
the accumulated HTU from sowing to physiological maturity was maximum
(23258 0C days hrs.) in cultivar V4-TG 26 followed by (22452 0C days hrs.) in
cultivar V2-GG 20, (22008 0C days hrs.) in cultivar V1-GG 2 and (21314 0C
days hrs.) in cultivar V3-GJG 31. Between the two years the accumulated HTU
was higher (22307 0C days hrs.) in 2016 than that of 2015 (21386 0C days hrs.).
115
Pod yield was negatively correlated with maximum, minimum
temperature and mean temperature during most of the phenophases except
during maturity period. The higher (Tmean.) were (>25.70C) and (>270C)
during P2 and P6 phase was not suitable for groundnut. Higher (Tmean) during
P2 and P6 phase adversely affected the plant height, LAI, number of branches
etc. which ultimately contributed to lower pod yield. The significant and
positive correlation between pod yield and (Tmean) during maturity period P9
(pod maturity to physiological maturity) during this period (Tmean) varied
between 32.7 and 35.10C, pod maturity requires (Tmean.) more than 33.9 0C
for proper seed development which resulted in higher test weight resulting in
higher pod yield of groundnut. The pod yield was negatively correlated with
bright sunshine hours (BSS) during most of the phenophases except during P3,
P4, P7 and P9 phases.
5.3.4 CROPGRO-peanut (DSSAT v 4.6) model simulation results
5.3.4.1 Days to anthesis
The lowest deviation was observed in second dates of sowing i.e 15th
February. In case of different cultivars close simulation is obtained i.e the
observed days to anthesis were 34-35 DAS, while model simulated 35-36 days
with deviation ranging between 3.9 to 4.9 per cent. The model have been
slightly overestimated days to anthesis. The average error as computed by r,
MAE, MBE, RMSE and PE were 0.94, 0.11, 0.11, 1.0 and 2.4 respectively
indicating a fairly good simulation
116
5.3.4.2 Days to first pod initiation
Model simulated days to pod initiation were very close to the observed
one under different dates of sowing the observed days to first pod initiation
were 52-57 days, while the simulated values were 48-53 days with deviation
obtained i.e the observed days to first pod initiation were 53-55 DAS, while
model simulated 50-51 days with deviation ranging between 6.1 to 7.4 per cent.
The model have been slightly underestimated days to first pod initiation. The
average error as computed by r, MAE, MBE, RMSE and PE were 0.98, 0.30, -
0.30, 2.61 and 4.80, respectively indicating a fairly good simulation.
5.3.4.3 Days to physiological maturity
It is found that the model simulated days to physiological maturity were
very close to the observed one under different dates of sowing, the observed
days to physiological maturity were 95-103 days, while the simulated values
were 95-99 days with deviation ranging between 0.2 to 5.9 per cent. Among the
cultivars close simulation is obtained i.e the observed days to physiological
maturity were 99-102 DAS, while model simulated 95-99 days with deviation
ranging between 0.5 to 4.8 per cent.
5.3.4.4 Leaf area index
The observed value of max. LAI under different dates of sowing were
4.3 to 5.5 per cent, while the simulated value were 4.5 to 4.7 per cent with
deviation ranging between 2.6 to 13.9 per cent. The lowest deviation was
observed in third dates of sowing i.e 02nd March. In case of different cultivars
117
observed value to max. LAI were 4.1 to 5.6 %, while model simulated 4.2 to
5.0 % with deviation ranging between 4.6 to 12.6 per cent.
5.3.4.5 Pod yield
The highest pod yield (2123 kg ha-1) was observed under second date of
sowing (15th February) followed by (1953 kg ha-1) first date of sowing (31st
January) and (1811 kg ha-1) third date of sowing (D3-02nd March), while model
also shows similar trend, the highest pod yield simulated (2348 kg ha-1) under
second date of sowing (15th February) followed by (2184 kg ha-1) first date of
sowing (31st January) and (1614 kg ha-1) third date of sowing (02nd March)
with deviation ranging between (9.4 and 12.1 %). In case of different cultivars
observed value to pod yield were 1772 to 2110 kg ha-1, while model simulated
1853 to 2285 kg ha-1 with deviation ranging between 2.8 to 6.4 per cent
5.3.4.6 Kernel yield
It is found that the model simulated value to kernel yield were very close
to the observed one under different dates of sowing the observed value to
kernel yield were 1234-1439 kg ha-1, while the simulated values were 1350-
1580 kg ha-1 with deviation ranging between 9.0 to 10.0 per cent. Among the
cultivars close simulation is obtained i.e the observed value to kernel yield
were 1232-1455 kg ha-1, while model simulated 1396-1556 kg ha-1 with
deviation ranging between 7.0 to 13.3 per cent.
5.3.4.7 Haulm yield
It is found that the model simulated value to haulm yield were very close
to the observed one under different dates of sowing the observed value to
118
haulm yield were 4684-5263 kg ha-1, while the simulated values were 3959-
4711 kg ha-1 with deviation ranging between 10.5 to 15.6 per cent. Among the
cultivars close simulation is obtained i.e the observed value to haulm yield
were 4576-5423 kg ha-1, while model simulated 3868-4706 kg ha-1 with
deviation ranging between 11.7 to 15.6 per cent.
5.3.4.8 Harvest index
The highest harvest index (28.7) was found under second date of sowing
(15thFebruary) followed by first date of sowing and third date of sowing and
same trend in simulated value, highest harvest index simulated under (38.8)
second date of sowing followed by first date of sowing and third date of sowing
with deviation ranging between (21.1 to 35.5 %). Among the cultivars
observed value to harvest index were 27.5-29.7, while model simulated 34.0-
37.3 with deviation ranging between 17.6 to 30.6 per cent.
5.3.5 Sensitivity analysis of CROPGRO-peanut model
5.3.5.1 Effects of maximum temperature
Sensitivity of CROPGRO-peanut model shows that the highest percent
change in yield over base yield due to change of maximum temperature was
recorded obtained in cultivar GG 20 (+3 to -46%) followed by cv. TG 26 (+25
to -48%), cv. GJG 31 (+31 to -43%) in all cultivars. Such behaviuor of the
model was mainly due to reduction in duration of anthesis and grain filling
with rise in ambient temperature and vice versa. Overall results shows that
elevated maximum temperature decreased pod yield significantly and
downscaled temperature increased the pod yield in all cultivars.
119
5.3.5.2 Effects of minimum temperature
The per cent change in pod yield was highest (+11 to -16%) in cultivar
GJG 31, followed by +8 to -15 in cultivar GG 20 and + 6 to -12 % in GG 2.
The result of simulated yield when examined in relation to minimum
temperature indicated decrease in yields with increase in temperature above
that corresponding to potential conditions in all cultivar. But the magnitude of
change from base yields in terms of percentage was more than corresponding to
the preceding level in all the increased level of minimum temperature.
5.3.5.3 Effects of carbon dioxide (CO2)
The percentage change over base yield was recorded highest (41%) in
cultivar (V4-TG 26) followed by (38%) in cultivar GG 20, (37%) in cultivar
GG 2 and (23%) in cultivar GJG 31. This clearly shows that elevated
concentration of CO2 had a significant and positive impact on the pod yield of
various groundnut cultivars.
5.3.5.4 Combined effects of maximum temperature and carbon dioxide
The sensitivity of model shows that with increase in maximum
temperature 1°C, combined with increase in CO2 concentration upto 450 ppm,
the pod yield increased in all cultivars, the highest 25% being in GG 20
followed by 20% in GG 2 and 20% in GJG 31. However, at increase of
maximum temperature 2°C and corresponding increase in level of CO2 at 500
ppm, adverse effect of maximum temperature was compensated with positive
effect of CO2 concentration as a result net effects are very marginal (-1 to 5 %)
across the cultivars. Further increases in temperature (+3°C) with
120
corresponding increase of CO2 at 550 ppm, resulted in adverse effect on
groundnut. The decrease in yield was maximum (-17%) in TG 26 followed by -
16 % in GJG 31 and -15 % in GG 20.
5.3.5.5 Combined effects of minimum temperature and carbon dioxide
The results shows that the adverse impact of higher minimum
temperature are well compensated by the corresponding increasing level of
CO2 and ultimately resulted in higher yield. At elevated CO2 of 450 ppm + 10 C
minimum temperature, the increase the pod yield was highest (74 %) in GG 2
followed by 69 % in GG 20 and 52 % in TG 26. However, when minimum
temperature was further increased with corresponding elevated CO2
concentration, the net impact was still positive. even with increases in
minimum temperature by 30 C at CO2 concentration of 550 ppm, the net impact
was positive ranging from 64 % in cultivar GG 2 to 33 % in cultivar TG 26.
Conclusions
The following broad conclusions could be drawn from the results of the
present investigation.
(1) The higher maximum temperature during pod maturity phase more than
40.7 0C, more favourable for groundnut production.
(2) Among the different dates of sowing 15thFebruary, sowing date is found
most ideal for getting maximum pod yield of groundnut under middle
Gujarat region.
(3) Among all cultivars GG 20 performed best (2093 kgha-1 in 2015 and 2121
kgha-1 in 2016) which is at par with cultivar GG 2 followed by cultivar
121
GJG 31 and TG26. Thus, variety GG 20 and GG 2 is better than cultivar
GJG 31 and TG 26.
(4) The calibrated CROPGRO model performed well for simulating
phenology (viz., anthesis, first pod initiation and physiological maturity)
with error percent less than 4.8. Similarly, for simulation of pod, kernel
and haulm production error percent was less than 10.06. Hence, this
model can be used for simulating the phenology and yield of groundnut
cultivars
(5) As per model simulation the effect of minimum temperature on yield was
less than that of maximum temperature. Among different cultivars GG 20
and GJG 31 was more vulnerable to increase in maximum temperature.
(6) Among all cultivar GG 20 and GJG31 was affected most adversely with
increased minimum temperature upto 30C, about 15% pod yield was
decreased in this cultivars.
(7) The simulated pod yield with elevated CO2 concentration from 450 to 550
ppm above the base (400 ppm) increases the yield by 16 to 41 % in
different cultivars. The maximum effect of elevated CO2 on simulated
yield was on cultivar TG 26 followed by GG 20, GG 2 and GJG 31.
(8) As per model simulation pod yield increases (18 to 24%) with increases
(Tmax+ CO2) by (1+450) there after increasing (Tmax + CO2) highly
decreases the pod yield in all the cultivars. Similarly pod yield highly
increases (68 to 74%) with increases (Tmin+ CO2) by (1+450) in all
cultivars there after increasing (Tmin + CO2) slowly decreases the pod
yield in all the cultivars.
122
REFERENCES
Adamou, M., Prasad, P. V. V., Boote, K. J. and Detongnon, J. (2005). Disease

assessment methods and their use in simulating growth and yield of peanut
crops affected by leaf spot disease. Annals of. App Bio., 146: 469-479.
Aggarwal, P. K., Banerjee, B., Daryaei, M. G., Bhatia, A., Bala, A., Rani, S., Chander,
S., Pathak, H. and Kalra, N. (2006). Info-Crop: A dynamic simulation model
for the assessment of crop yields, losses due to pests, and environmental impact
of agroecosystems in tropical environments. II. Performance of the model.
Agril. Sys., 89: 47-67.
Agrawal, K. K., Upadhayay, A. P. Shanrker, U. and Gupta, V. K. (2001). Photothermal
effect of growth development and yield of gram (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes
Indian J. Agriculture Science. 72 (3): 169-170.
Akula, B. (2003). Estimating wheat yields in Gujarat using WTGROWS and
INFOCROP model. Ph.D. (Agri. Meteorology) thesis submitted to GAU, Sardar
krushinagar.
Andre, R. G. R. and Viswnathan, Y. (1983). Radiation balance of soybean grown in
Brazil. Agril. Met., 30 (3): 157-173.
Anonymous (2012).www.agricoop.nic.in/Agricultural statistics.
Anonymous, (2017). USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Global Analysis
Web site https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/production.
Antony, E., Roy Chaudhury, S. and Kaur, G. (2003). Variation in heat and radiation use
efficiency of green gram as influenced by showing dates and chemical sprays.
J. Agromet., 5 (2): 58-61.
Arya, S. P. S. (1977). Suggested revisions to certain boundary layer parameterization
Scheme used in atmospheric circulation models. Mon. Weather Rev., 105: 215-
227.
Awal, M. A. and Ikeda, T. (2003). Effect of elevated soil temperature on radiation use
efficiency in peanut stands. Agric and For Meteo., 118: 63-74.
Balakrishnan, K. and Natarajaratanam, N. (1990). Influence of sowing dates on the
phenology and transpiration rate in pigeanpea. Madaras Agric. J., 74 (3): 121-
128.
References
Bannayan, M., Tojo Soler, C. M., Garcia, A., Garcia, Y., Guerra, L. C. and
Hoogenboom, G. (2009). Interactive effects of elevated CO2 and temperature
on growth and development of a short and long season peanut cultivar. Climatic
Change, 93: 389-406.
Baston, E. A., Folegatti, M. V., De Faria, R. T. and Milton J. C. (2001). Simulation of
growth and development of irrigated cowpea in Piaui state by CROPGRO
model. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. Brasilia 7: 1381- 1387.
Basu, S., S. K. Dutta., D. Fangazuva., S. Jena., S. Maji., R. Nath and P. K. Chakraborty
(2013). Effect of interception of PAR on leaf area index and total dry matter
accumulation in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) varieties sown under
different dates in Gangetic Plains of West Bengal. National Symposium on
cliamate Change and indian Agriculture. On Slicing Down the Uncertainties.
Abs. of Papers. Organized by Association of Agrometeorologists AP Chapter
& CRIDA 22-23 Jan 2013. Pp-50 (S2-21).
Bellow, J. G., Shin, D. W., O'Brien, J. J., Schoof, J. and Jones, J. W. (2007). Using
temperature, precipitation and solar radiation outputs from a dynamically
downscaled global climate circulation model to predict peanut yields in the
South Eastern USA. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series.
Bhatia, V. S., Bhateigar, P. S., Guruprasad, K. N. and Manglik, P. (1997). Variation in
the sensitivity of soybean genotypes to varying photoperiods in India. Soybean
Genet. Newsl. 14: 99-103.
Bhatia, V. S., Singh, P., Wani, S. P., and Srinivas, K. (2005). Yield gap analysis of
groundnut in India using simulation modeling. Global theme on Agro
ecosystems Report No. xx, Patancheru. International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Pp 43.
Boote, K. J. (1982). Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci, 9: 35-
39.
Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W. and Pickering, N. B. (1996). Potential uses and limitations of
crop models. Agron. J., 88: 704-716.
Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Wilkerson, G. G. and Jagtap, S. S. (1989).
PNUTGRO, peanut crop growth simulation model. User’s guide. Gainesville,
Florida, USA: Florida Agric Expt Station, 76 pp.
Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., Mishoe, J. W. and Wilkerson, G. G. (1988). Modeling growth
and yield of groundnut. In: Agrometeorology of groundnut. Proceedings of an
ii
References
International Symposium, ICRISAT Sahelian center, Niamey, Niger, 21-26
Aug. 1985, 243-254. Patancheru, AP, India.
Canavar, O. and Kaynak, M. A. (2010). Growing degree day and sunshine radiation
effects on peanut pod yield and growth. African. J. of Biotech, 9(15): 2234-
2241.
Chauhan, Y., Rao, C. N. R., Wright, G. C., Kuniata, L., Ramakrishna, A., Tomda, Y.
and Geob, T. (2006). Assessing the potential for rainfed peanut production in
Papua New Guinea using crop modelling approaches. ACIAR Proc, 122: 68-
118.
Craufurd, P. Q., Wheeler, T. R., Ellis, R. H., Summerfield, R. J. and Prasad, P. V. V.
(2000). Escape and tolerance to high temperature at flowering in groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea L.). J. of. Agric Sci., 135: 371-378.
DOA (2012). Forest Report, Directorate of Agriculture, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.
Donald, C. M. and Hamblin, J. (1976).The biological yield and harvest index of cereals
as agronomic and plant breeding criteria. Adv. in Agron, 28: 361-364.
Dugan, E., Adiku, S. G. K., Dowuona, G. N. N., Laryea, K. B. and Kumaga, F. (2011).
Application of CROPGRO Peanut model to evaluate groundnut growth and
yield in some farming zones of Ghana. Bioresearch Bulletin, 5: 322-328.
Dutta, D. and Mondal, S. S. (2006). Response of summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea
L.) to moisture stress, organic manure and fertilizer with and without gypsum
under lateritic soil of West Bengal. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 51(2):145-148.
Gadgil, S. (2000). Farming strategies for a variable climate: An Indian case study. In:
Proceedings of the International Forum on Climate Prediction, Agriculture and
Development, Palisades, New York, 26–28 April 2000. New York, IRI.
Geetha, A., Shankar, S. A., Prayaga, L., Suresh, J. and Anuradha, J. (2011). Effect of
moisture stress on yield and yield related paramaters in sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L.) genotypes. Journal of Oilseeds Research 28(2): 175-179.
Gilbert, R. A., Boote, K. J. and Bennett, J. M. (2002). On farm testing of the PNUTGRO
crop growth model in Florida. Peanut Sci., 29: 58-65.
Gill, K. K., Guriqbal Singh, G. S. Bains, R. (2007). Prediction of Mungbean Phenology
of Various Genotypes Under Varying Dates of Sowing Using Different Thermal
Indices. In: Attri S., Rathore L., Sivakumar M., Dash S. (eds) Challenges and
Opportunities in Agrometeorology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
iii
References
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research.
2nd Ed. An International Rice Research Institute. John Willey and sons, New
York.
Gouri, V., Raji Reddy, D., Narasimha Rao, S. B. S. and Yogeshwara Rao, A. (2005).
Thermal requirement of rabi groundnut in southern Telangana zone of Andhra
Pradesh. J. of Agrometeorology, 7(1): 90-94.
Guled, P. M., Shekh, A. M., Patel, H. R., Pandey, V. and Patel, G. G. (2012). Validation
of CROPGRO-peanut model in middle Gujarat agroclimatic region. J. of
Agrometeorology, 14 (2): 154-157.
Hemalatha, S., Rao, Praveen V. and Reddy, B. N. (2006). A functional approach to
predict effect of water deficit in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of
Oilseeds Research. 23(2): 194-198.
Hoogenboom G., Tsuji, G. Y., Pickering, N. B., Curry, R. B., Jones, J. J., Singh, U.,
Godwin., D. C. (1995). Decision support system to study climate change
impacts on crop production. In: Climate change and agriculture: analysis of
potential international impacts. ASA Special Publication No. 59, Madison, WI,
USA, pp. 51–75.
Hoogenboom, G. (2000). Contribution of agrometeorology to the simulation of crop
production and its applications. Agril and for meteorology. 103: 137-157.
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., Du Toit,
A., White, J. W. and Tsuji, G.Y. (2004). Decision Support System for
Agrotechnology Transfer Version 4.0. Ver. 4.0 [CD-ROM publication].
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Hoogenboom, G., Wilkens, P. W., Thornton, P. K., Jones, J. W., Hunt, L. A., and
Imamura, D.T., (1999). Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer.
V.3.5 In: Hoogenboom, G., Wilkens, P.W., and Tsuji, G.Y., (Eds.). DSSAT
.v.3, vol.4 (ISBN 1-886684-04-9). University of Hawaii, Honalulu, USA.pp.1-
36
Hook, J. E. (1994). Using the crop models to plant water withdrawls for irrigation in
drought years. Agril. Sys., 45: 271-281.
Hundal, S. S. and Kingra, P. K. (2000). Radiation between day taken and GDD
required. J. of Agrometeorology, 2 (2): 123-130.
iv
References
Hunt, L. A. (1993). Designing improved plant types: a breeder's viewpoint. In: Penning
de Vries, F.W.T.; Teng, P. and Metselaar, K. (Eds.). Systems Approaches for
Agricultural Development, Vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands. pp.3-18.
IPCC, (20014). The physical science basis of climate change-A report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment report,
Summery for
Jones, J. W., Tsuji, G. Y., Hoogenboom, G., Hunt, L. A., Thornton, P. K., Wilkens,
P.W., Imamura, D. T., Bowen, W.T. and Singh, U. (1998). Decision Support
System for Agrotechnology Transfer: DSSAT v3. pp 157-178. In:
Understanding options for agricultural production, Tsuji, G. Y., Hoogenboom,
G., Thornton P. K. (ed). Systems approaches for sustainable agricultural
development Vol. 7, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Joshi, S. N. and Kabaria, M. M. (1972). Effect of rainfall distribution on yield of
groundnut in Saurashtra. Indian. J. of. Agric. Sci., 42(8): 681-684.
Kachroo, D. (1987). Pre-and post-monsoon scheduling of irrigation to groundnut crop
sown on different dates (Arachis hypogaea L.). M.Sc. Thesis, PAU, Ludhiana.
Karunakar, A. P., Jiotode, D. J. and Nalamwar, R. V. (2002). Basis of variation in pod
yield of kharif groundnut under delayed sowings. Research on Crops, 3 (3):
546-550.
Karunaratne, A., Azam Ali, S., Sasey, A., Dapaah, H. A. and Crout, N. (2008).
Modelling the effect of temperature, soil moisture and photoperiod on growth
and development of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.):
BAMGRO model. Proceedings of the 14th Australian Agronomy Conference.
Kaur, P and Hundal, S. S. (2006) Effect of Possible Futuristic Climate Change
Scenarios on Productivity of Some kharif and rabi Crops in the Central
Agroclimatic Zone of Punjab. J. of Agric. Physics., 6(1): 21-27.
Kaur, P. and Hundal, S. S. (1999). Forecasting growth and yield of groundnut with a
dynamic simulation model PNUTGRO under Punjab conditions. J. of Agric
Sci., 133: 167-173.
Krishna Kumar, K., Patwardhan, S. K., Kulkarni, A., Kamala, K., Rao, K. K., and
Jones, R., 2011, Simulated projections for summer monsoon climate over India
by a high-resolution regional climate model (PRECIS), Current Science, 101(3),
312–26.
v
References
Kulkarni, B. S., Sreenivasa Rao., T. and Krishnakanth, G. (2004). A study on
association of combined effect of rainfall patterns on crop yields. J. of Ind. Soc.
Agril. Stat., 58 (3): 344-351.
Kumar, N., Nain, A. S., Sumana, R. and Suman, K. (2014). Coalesced impact
assessment of climate change through simulation modelling. “International
Symposium on “New Dimensions in Agrometeorology for Sustainable
Agriculture” jointly being organised by G. B. Pant University of Agriculture &
Technology, Pantnagar and Association of Agrometeorologists, Anand. pp-24.
Kumar. N, Nain, A. S. and Suman, K. (2012). Sequential simulation of wheat and urd
using DSSAT model in mollisol of Uttrakhand. J. of Agrometeorology, 14 (2):
158-162.
Lakkad, L. V. (1993). Study on the effect of irrigation and integrated nutrient
management on growth, yield and quality of potato and their residual effects on
succeeding summer groundnut crop. Ph.D Thesis submitted to GAU, Anand,
Gujarat.
Lakra., S. A. and Nareshkumar, S. (2015). Simulate the impact of sequential climatic
stresses on soybean using Infocrop model. Int. Journal of Scientific Res. 8 (4):
501-503.
Lavand, P. S. (2012). Crop - Weather relationship in summer greengram (Vigna radiata
(L.). M.Sc. (Agri) Thesis submitted to Junagadh Agricultural University,
Junagadh
Loomis, R. S., and Williams, W. A. (1963). Maximum crop productivity: an estimate.
Crop Science, 3: 67-72.
Mall, R. K., Lal, M., Bhatia, V. S., Rathore, L. S. and Singh, R. (1998). Mitigating
climate change impact on Soybean productivity in India: a simulation study.
Agril. Forest Met., 121: 113-12.
Mavromatis, T., Jagtap, S. S. and Jones, J. W. (2002). El Nino-Southern Oscillation
effects on peanut yield and nitrogen leaching. Climate Research 22: 129-140.
Meena, R. P. and Dahama, A. K. (2004). Relevance of thermal units in deciding sowing
time and yield prediction of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under irrigated
condition of western Rajasthan. J. of Agrometeorology, 6 (1): 62-69.
Mishra, S. K., Shekh, A. M., Pandey, V., Yadav, S. B. and Patel, H. R. (2015).
Sensitivity analysis of four wheat cultivars to varying photoperiod and
vi
References
temperature at different phenological stages using WOFOST model. J. of
Mishra, S. K., Shekh, A. M., Yadav, S. B., Anil Kumar, Patel, G. G. Pandey V. and
Patel H. R. (2013). Simulation of growth and yield of four wheat cultivars using
WOFOST model under middle Gujarat region. J. of Agrometeorology, 15
(1):43-50.
Mo, X., Zhu, G. J. and Chang, W. D. (1991). The effect of meteorological factors on
the growth, development and yield of spring soybean. Soybean Sci., 10: 234-
239.
Monteith, J. L. (1981). Climatic variations and growth of crops. Quart. J. Roy Meteorol.
Soc., 107: 749-774.
Mukhesh kumar ujinwal (2008). Simulation of kharif Groundnut (cv. Robut 33-1 and
GG-2) yield using DSSAT model under varied environmental conditions in
Middle Gujarat region. M.sc.(Ag).Thesis submitted to AAU, Anand.
Murthy, P. S. S. and Rao, R. C. N. (1986). Physiological basis of variations in pod yield
of rainfed groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) under different dates of sowing.
Indian J. of Agron, 31: 106-108.
Naab, J. B., Singh, P., Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W. and Marfo, K. O. (2004). Using the
CROPGRO Peanut model to quantify yield gaps of peanut in the Guinean
Savanna Zone of Ghana. J. of Agron., 96: 1231-1242.
Nigam, S. N. Nageswara Rao, R. C. and Wynne, J. C. (1998). Effects of temperature
and photoperiod on vegetative and reproductive growth of groundnut {Arachis
hypogaea L.). J. of Agro and Crop Sci., 181: 117—124.
Nuttonson, M. Y. (1955). Wheat climate relationships and use of phenology in
ascertaining and use of phenology in ascertaining the thermal and photothermal
requirements of wheat. American Inst. Crop ecology. Washington DC. pp 388.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates, 2nd Ed., Mathuen and Co. Ltd, pp 372.
Halster press, John Wlley and Sons. New York.
Pandey, G. and Bhatt, P. (2012). Groundnut-An oilseed crop rich in nutritional and
medicinal properties. Indian Farming, 62(1): 29-30.
Pandey, V., Patel, H. R. and Patel, V. J. (2007). Impact assessment of climate change
on wheat yield in Gujarat using CERES-wheat model. J. of Agrometeorology,
9(2):149-157.
vii
References
Pandey. V., Shekh, A. M., Vadodaria, R. P. and Bhatt, B. K. (2001). Evaluation of
CROPGRO peanut model for two genotypes under different environment. Paper
presented at the National seminar on Agro Meteorological Research for
Sustainable Agricultural Production at G.A.U. Anand.
Parmar, P. K., Patel, H. R., Yadhav, S. B. and Pandey, V. (2013). Impact assessment of
climate change on groundnut yield North-Saurashtra agro-climatic zone of
Gujarat. J. Agrometeorology, 15 (1): 62-65.
Parvender, S. and Pal, S. (2007). Thermal indices for prediction of mungbean
phenology under varying irrigation schedule. J. of Agrometeorology. 9: (2) 247-
252.
Patel, C. S. (2011). Influence of irrigation schedule (IW:CPE ratio) sulphur and plant
growth regulator on growth yield attributes and pod yield of summer groundnut
under middle Gujarat condition. Ph.D. (Agronomy) thesis submitted to AAU,
Anand.
Patel, G. G., Patel, H. R., Pandey, V., Shekh, A. M., Patel, J. S., Vadodaria, R. P., Bhatt,
B. K. and Shroff, J. C. (2010). Influence of weather parameters on pod yield of
groundnut in middle Gujarat agroclimatic region. J. of Agrometeorology, 12 (1):
77-80.
Patel, H. R., Lunagaria, M. M., Karande, B. I., Yadav, S. B., shah, A. V., Sood, V. K.
and Vyas Pandey (2015). Climate change and its impact on major crops in
Gujarat. J. of Agrometeorology, 17 (2): 190-193.
Patel, H. R., Patel V. J., and Pandey, V. (2008). Impact assessment of climate change
on maize cultivars yield in middle Gujarat using CERES-maize model. J. of
Agrometeorology, 10 (Special issue):292-295.
Patel, J. S. and Vaishnav, P. R. (2003). Evaluation of different approaches to study the
effect of rainfall on groundnut in dry farming area of Gujarat. J. of
Agrometeorology, 5(1): 76-83.
Patil, D. D. and Patel, H. R. (2017). Calibration and validation of CROPGRO (DSSAT
4.6) model for chickpea under middle gujarat agroclimatic region. Int. Journal
of Agriculture Sci., 9 (27): 4342-4344.
Patra, A. K., Tripathy, S. K. and Samui, R. C. (1981). Growth of summer groundnut in
relation to sowing date, irrigation and spacing. J. of Oilseed Res., 15 (2): 303-
306.
viii
References
Piper, E. L., Boote, K. J. and Jones, W. L. (1998). Evaluation and improvement of crop
models using regional cultivars trial data. Trans. ASAE, 14: 435-446.
policymakers”. http://ipcc-wgl.ucar.edu/wgl/wglreport. html.
Prasad, P. V. V., Boote, K. J., Allen, L. H. and Thomas, J. M. G. (2003). Super optimal
temperatures are detrimental to peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) reproductive
processes and yield at both ambient and elevated carbon dioxide. Global
Change Biology, 9 (12): 1775-1787.
Prasad, P. V. V., Boote, K. J., Thomas, J. M. G., Allen, L. H. and Gorbet, D. W. (2006).
Influence of soil temperature on seedling emergence and early growth of peanut
cultivars in field conditions. J. of Agron and Crop Sci., 192: 168-177.
Prasad, P. V. V., Craufurd, P. Q. and Summerfield, R. J. (2000). Effect of high air and
soil temperature on dry matter production, pod yield and yield components of
groundnut. Plant and Soil, 222: 231-239.
Rai, H. K. and Kushwaha (2005). Validation of CERES-rice model for prediction of
upland rice yield. J. of Agrometeorology, 7 (1): 101-106.
Ramaraj, A. P., Jagnnathan, R. and Dheebakaran, G. (2010). Impact of climate change
on rice and groundnut yield using PRECIS Regional Climate Model and DSSET
crop simulation model. ISPRS Archives XXXVIII-8/W3 Workshop
Proceedings: Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture. ISPRS Ahmedabad,
Space Applications Centre (ISRO) Ahmedabad..
Rani, N. R. and Reddy, G. H. (2008). Optimum seed rate for rainfed spanish groundnut.
The Andhra Agriculture Journal 32 (3): 178-181.
Rao, Bapuji, B., Ramana Rao, B.V., Subba Rao, A.V. M., Manikandan, N., Narasimha
Rao, S.B.S., Rao, V.U.M. and Venkateswarlu, B. (2011). Assessment of the
impact of increasing temperature and rainfall variability on crop productivity in
drylands - An illustrative approach. Research Bulletin 1/2011, Central Research
Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,
India. 32p.
Rao, N. K., Gadgil, S., Seshagiri Rao, P. R. and Savithri, K. (2000). Tailoring strategies
to rainfall variability: The choice of the sowing window. Current Sci., 78(10):
1216-1230.
Reddy, R. D., Sreenivas, G., Mahadevappa, S. G., Rao, S. B. S. N. and Verma, N. R.
G. (2008). Performance of CERES and WOFOST model in prediction of
ix
References
phenology and yield of rice in Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. J. of
Agrometeorology, (Special issue- Part-I): 109-110.
Reddy, T. Y., Reddy, V. R. and Anbumozhi, V. (2003). Physiological responses of
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to drought stress and its amelioration, a
critical review. Plant Growth Regulation, 41:75–88.
Robertson, M. J., Carberry, P. S., Huth, N. I., Trupin, J. E., Probert, M. E., Poulton, P.
L., Bell, M., Wright, G. C., Yeates, S. J. and Brinsmead, R. B. (2002).
Simulations of growth and development of diverse legume species in ASPM.,
Aut. J. Agr. Res., 53: 429-446.
Sahu, D. D., Patolia, B. M. and Asodaria, K. B. (2000). Studies on rainfall pattern and
groundnut productivity in Junagadh region. J. of Agrometeorology, 2(2): 140-
146.
Sahu, D. D., Patra, B. K. and Patoliya, B. M. (2007). Effect of sowing time and rainfall
distribution on groundnut yield. IAN, 24: 39-42.
Sahu, D. D., Sastry P. S. N. and Dixit, S. K. (1994). Growing season and productivity
of rain-fed groundnut. Journal of Oilseeds Research., 11(2): 152-159.
Shamim. M., Shekh, A. M., Pandey, V., Patel, H. R and Lunagaria, M. M. (2010).
Sensitivity of CERES-Rice model to different environmental parameters on the
productivity of aromatic rice in middle Gujarat. J. of Agrometeorology, 12 (2):
213-216.
Singh, A. K., Mishra, A. N. and Tripathi, P. (2012). Thermal regime requirement and
plant responses of chickpea cultivars under variable weather conditions. J.
Agromet., 14 (1): 67-69.
Singh, A. Singh, R., Rao, V. U. W. and Pannu, R. K. (2003). Effect of shade on
phenological development, thermal and radiation use efficiency of wheat
genotypes. J. of Agrometeorology, 5 (2): 37-42.
Singh, A., Rao, V. U. M. Singh, D. and Singh, R. (2007). Study on Agrometeorological
indices for soybean crop under different growing environments. J. of
Singh, J. M. and Singh, B. H. (1994). Effect of rainfall distribution on the yield of
groundnut during its growth period. J. Ind. Soc. Ag. Stat., 46 (1): 99-102.
Singh, S., Singh, D. and Rao, V. U. M. (2009). Response of chickpea seed germination
to varying temperatures. J. of Agrometeorology, 11 (1): 64-66.
x
References
Singh, U. (1989). IBSNAT’s Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer.
pp. 3-4. In: Modeling the growth and development of sorghum and pearl millet,
S.M. Virmani, H.L.S. Tandon, and G. Algarswamy (ed). Research Bulletin No.
12, ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P, India.
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. (1967). “Statistical Methods”. The Iowa State
University Press, Iowa.
Srivastava, A. K., Silawat, S. and Agrawal, K. K. (2016). Simulating the impact of
climate change on chickpea yield under rainfed and irrigated conditions in
Madhya Pradesh. J. of Agrometeorology, 18 (1): 100-105.
Subbaiah S.V., Rao Y. Y. and Reddi G.H.S. (1974). Crop weather relationships of six
groundnut varieties sown on two dates under rainfed conditions. J. of Res., 2(1):
24-28.
Subrahmaniyan, K., Kalaiselvan, P., Balasubramanian, T. N. and Zhou, W. (2006).
Correlation between derived weather parameters and crop parameters as
influenced by land configuration, herbicide and plant geometry under
polyethylene film mulched groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Arch of Agron
and Soil Sci, 52(6): 637-644.
Swan, J. B., Schneider, E. C. Moncrief, J. E, Paulson, W. H. and Peterson, A. E. (1987).
Estimating crop growth yield and grain moisture from air growing degree days
and residue cover. J of Agron., 79 :53-60.
Thiyagarajan, G., Ranghaswami, M. V., Rajakumar, D. and Kumaraperumal, R. (2010).
Deficit irrigation effects on groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) with micro
sprinklers. Madras Agric. J, 97 (13): 40-42.
Tripathi P., Singh A. K., Sheobardan and Shabdadhar (2009). Growth and thermal unit
of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under variable weather conditions
of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Asian Journal of Enviromental Science, 3 (2): 164-
168.
Tsigbey, F. K., Brandenburg, R. L. and Clottey, V. A. (2003). Peanut production
methods in northern Ghana and some disease perspectives. J. of Agron, 34 (2):
36-47.
Ujinwal, M. K. and Patel, H. R. (2008). Validation and calibration of PNUTGRO
(DSSAT 3.5) model for yield attributing characters of groundnut cultivars in
kharif season in middle Gujarat region. Presented at 3rd National Seminar on
xi
References
“Agrometeorological services for farmers held at AAU, Anand during 10 to 13
November 2008.
Vaghasia, P. M., Jadav, K. V. and Nadiyadhara, M. V. (2010). Effect of soil moisture
stress at various growth stages on growth and productivity of summer groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes. Int. J. of Agric Sci, 6 (1): 141-143.
Wajid, A., Hussain, K., Maqsood, M., Khaliq, T. and Ghaffari, A. (2007).Simulation
modeling of growth, develop-ent and grain yield of wheat under semi arid
conditions of Pakistan. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 44 (2):194-199.
Went, F. W. (1957). The experimental control of plant growth. Chronica Bota., (Ser.),
Ronald Press Co., London.
Whisler, F.D., Acock, B., Baker, D. N., Fye, R. E., Hodges, H. F., Lambert J. R.,
Lemmon, H.E., McKinion, J. M. and Reddy, V. R. (1986). Crop simulation
models in agronomic systems. Adv. in Agron, 40: 141-208.
Willmott (1982). Validation of the model. Chapter No. 8 in CERES-Wheat book, Draft
No. 1.
Wright, G. C., Hubick, K. T. and Farquhar, G. D. (1999). Physiological analysis of
peanut cultivar response to timing and duration of drought stress. Aus. J. of Agri.
Res., 42: 453-470.
Yadav, M. K., Singh, R. S. Singh, K. K., Mall, R. K., Patel, C., Yadav, S. K and Singh,
M. K. (2016). Assessment of climate change impact on pulse, oilseed and
vegetable crops at Varanasi, India. J. of Agrometeorology, 18 (1): 31-32.
Yadav, S. B., Patel, H. R., Mishra, S. K., Parmar, P. K., Karandey, B. I. and Pandey,
V. (2017). Impact assessment of climate change on groundnut yield of middle
Gujarat region. Mausam, 68 (1): 93-98.
Young, C. (1996). Peanut oil. Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Product 2: 337-392.
xii
Appendix I: Weekly a) mean maximum, b) minimum, c) mean air temperature, d) mean morning, e) afternoon and f) mean relative humidity
as prevailed during the crop growth period during summer seasons of 2015 and 2016.
Appendix I: Weekly mean a) morning, b) afternoon, c) mean vapor pressure, d) evaporation, e) bright sunshine hours and f) rainfall as
prevailed during the crop growth period during summer seasons of 2015 and 2016.
ii
Appendix-II: Weekly meteorological data during crop growing season
2015
Week.
Tmax Tmin Tmean RH1 Rh2 Rhmean VP1 VP2 VPmean EP BSS Rain
No
12.1 19.2 39 65.4 11.0 10.3
5 26.3 92 9.6 3.2 9.8 0.0
6 29.8 9.2 19.5 85 44 64.3 10.8 12.6 11.7 3.8 9.3 0.0
7 26.9 11.9 19.4 90 36 63.0 10.8 12.5 11.7 4.3 9.9 0.0
8 25.7 12.6 19.1 87 36 61.2 13.4 13.6 13.5 4.5 9.7 0.0
9 28.2 10.5 19.4 89 50 69.3 11.4 11.9 11.7 4.2 8.1 25.4
10 29.4 13.4 21.4 82 34 57.9 12.1 11.8 12.0 5.2 9.7 0.0
11 31.8 12.7 22.2 82 42 61.9 13.7 14.4 14.1 5.6 9.0 3.6
12 35.3 16.3 25.8 72 23 47.6 14.0 11.8 12.9 7.0 10.3 0.0
13 27.8 14.0 20.9 77 34 55.6 17.0 15.7 16.4 6.7 8.3 0.0
14 32.2 16.0 24.1 82 43 62.5 17.6 18.3 18.0 7.4 8.7 0.0
15 32.8 16.8 24.8 90 45 67.5 20.4 18.2 19.3 5.9 9.2 18.8
16 38.3 19.0 28.6 74 24 48.6 18.6 13.3 16.0 7.4 10.2 0.0
17 38.7 21.6 30.2 84 30 57.1 20.7 15.2 17.9 8.0 10.7 0.0
18 36.2 21.5 28.9 86 32 58.8 23.3 19.7 21.5 8.7 10.4 0.0
19 36.0 21.8 28.9 68 29 48.5 19.7 15.0 17.4 8.2 10.6 0.0
20 40.1 23.4 31.8 66 27 46.5 20.5 15.4 18.0 9.7 11.2 0.0
21 39.4 23.1 31.2 80 40 59.9 23.8 20.9 22.3 9.3 10.8 0.0
22 41.1 24.9 33.0 81 38 59.4 24.8 19.9 22.4 9.5 11.0 0.0
23 40.6 26.2 33.4 73 38 55.6 22.1 19.2 20.6 9.4 8.4 0.0
24 42.5 26.7 34.6 84 59 71.4 24.9 22.7 23.8 6.7 6.4 11.6
25 40.8 27.8 34.3 83 63 73.3 23.5 23.8 23.6 5.6 6.6 27.4
iii
2016
Week.
Tmax Tmin Tmean RH1 Rh2 Rhmean VP1 VP2 VPmean EP BSS Rain
No
13.2 21.8 40.4 64.2 12.3 11.7 0.0
5 30.4 88.0 11.0 3.4 9.2
6 29.9 11.1 20.5 76.7 31.1 53.9 8.5 9.2 8.9 4.2 10.0 0.0
7 29.8 14.7 22.3 80.4 33.6 57.0 10.8 10.2 10.5 4.0 8.5 0.0
8 33.0 15.4 24.2 79.0 38.4 58.7 11.5 13.3 10.3 5.2 8.9 0.0
9 36.0 18.5 27.2 66.8 31.5 49.1 11.8 13.5 12.7 5.5 9.3 0.0
10 35.2 19.1 27.2 70.7 26.1 48.4 12.9 10.3 11.6 6.4 9.9 0.0
11 34.9 19.8 27.4 71.7 28.7 50.2 13.5 11.2 12.4 6.3 9.7 0.0
12 38.4 19.9 29.2 66.1 20.3 43.2 13.1 9.9 11.5 8.2 9.8 0.0
13 38.9 19.8 29.4 73.7 22.1 47.9 13.7 10.4 12.1 6.9 9.1 0.0
14 37.2 23.5 30.4 70.6 29.2 49.9 17.0 13.0 15.0 7.2 9.1 0.0
15 38.6 24.1 31.4 60.5 22.7 41.6 15.7 11.1 13.4 9.3 10.4 0.0
16 39.0 23.9 31.4 58.6 28.9 43.7 15.4 13.7 14.6 8.3 10.6 0.0
17 37.7 24.4 31.1 66.3 30.7 48.5 17.9 14.3 16.1 7.4 9.1 0.0
18 40.2 25.1 32.6 75.4 32.1 53.8 20.7 16.8 18.7 8.7 9.2 0.0
19 40.5 26.9 33.7 73.1 32.3 52.7 21.6 17.4 19.5 8.4 10.6 10.3
20 43.3 27.1 35.2 70.4 27.0 48.7 22.2 16.8 19.5 10.5 11.2 0.0
21 39.7 28.2 33.9 76.6 42.3 59.4 24.5 21.6 23.1 10.0 10.8 0.0
22 39.7 28.0 33.9 74.9 38.0 56.4 24.0 19.3 21.7 10.3 11.2 0.0
23 41.9 28.1 35.0 74.3 34.0 54.1 23.8 18.8 21.3 10.5 11.2 0.0
24 39.1 28.1 33.6 71.7 37.6 54.6 23.1 18.8 20.9 10.3 9.6 0.0
25 37.7 28.5 33.1 77.6 50.4 64.0 24.6 22.3 23.4 7.4 4.5 3.4
iv
Appendix-III: List of input requirement by CROGRO (DSSAT) model
Input variables Acronyn Units

1. SITE DATA
Latitude LAT Degree
Longitude LONG Degree
Elevation ELEV m
Average air temperature TAV °C
Height of temperature measurement TMHT m
Height of wind measurement WMHT m
CO2 concentration ppm
2. DAILY WEATHER DATA
Maximum temperature TEMPMAX °C
Minimum temperature TEMPMIN °C
Solar radiation SOLARAD MJm-2day-1
Rainfall RAIN mm
Wind speed WRUN kmh-1
Relative humidity (morning) %
Relative humidity (afternoon) %
Dew point temperature TDEW °C
Photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) PAR MJm-2day-1
3. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil texture SLTX
Soil local classification SLDESC
Soil family SCS system TACON
Soil depth SLDP m
Colour, moist SCOM
Albedo (fraction) SALB
Evaporation limit U cm
Drainage rate (fraction day-1 ) SWCON
Runoff curve number CN2
Mineralization (0 to 1 scale) SLNF
Photosynthesis factor (0 to 1 scale) SLPE
pH in buffer determination method SMPX
Potassium determination method SMKE
Horizon-wise
Lower limit drained LL(L) cm3cm3
Upper limit drained DUL(L) cm3cm3
Upper limit drained SAT(L) cm3cm3
Saturated hydraulic conductivity SWCN(L) cmhr-1
Bulk density moist BD(L) gcm-3
Organic carbon OC(L) %
Clay (<0.002 mm)` CLAY(L) %
Silt (0.05 to 0.002 mm) SILT(L) %
Coarse fraction (>2 mm) STONES(L) %
Total nitrogen TOTN(L) %
pH in buffer PHKCL(L)
Cation exchange capacity CEC(L) Cmolkg-1
Root growth factor 0 to 1 SHF(L)
4. MANAGEMENT DATA
Sowing date YRPLT
Emergence date IEMERG
v
Plant population at seedling PLNATS Plantm-2
Planting method (TP/direct seeded) PLME
Planting distribution (row/broadcast/hill) PLDS
Row spacing ROWSPS cm
Row direction (degree from north) AZIR
Plants per hill PLPH
Seed rate SDWTRL kgha-1
Sowing depth SDEPTH cm
Irrigation dates IDLAPL
Irrigation amount AMT(J) mm
Method of irrigation IRRCOD
Fertilizer application dates FDAY(J)
Fertilizer amount N ANFER kgha-1
Fertilizer type IFTYPE
Fertilizer application method FERCOD
Fertilizer incorporation depth DFERT cm
Tillage date TDATE
Tillage implement TIMPL
Tillage depth TDEP cm
Residue management LNRES
Chemical applications LNCHE
Environment modification LNENV
5. HARVEST DETAILS
Harvest HDATE
Harvest stage HSTG
Harvest component HCOM
Harvest percentage kgha-1
vi
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that I have no objection for supplying a copy of my thesis
or any part of it to scientists or workers for rendering service either in library or
documentation centre.
Place: Anand
Date: /12/2017 (MOTE B. M.)
iii

Mote Balaji Mohan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mote Balaji Mohan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF CROPGRO-peanut

(DSSAT v.4.6) MODEL FOR SUMMER GROUNDNUT AND

MOTE BALAJI MOHAN

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY

(Registration No. 04-2378-2014)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY

period, resulting in shortening the duration and accumulation of higher heat

units, resulting lowest pod yield.

Pod yield also significantly influenced by different cultivars during

2 (1994 kg ha-1) followed by cultivar GJG 31 (1889 kg ha-1) and cultivar TG 26

Growing degree days (GDD) accumulated during each phase of

groundnut as recorded by different dates of sowing, cultivars and years showed

number of days taken to physiological maturity was maximum under (31 st

hrs.). Correlation studies were contemplated to have an insight on the effect of

production of groundnut crop and to identify the critical phases of groundnut

crop most sensitive to particular weather parameter.

Overall performance of the model based on the test criterion to evaluate

the CROPGRO-Peanut model for phenological and yield attributes of four

accurately under different management conditions. Model also well simulated

the effects of variations in maximum temp., minimum temp., concentration of

effect of minimum temperature and CO2 level on pod yield.

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Calibration and validation of

CROPGRO–peanut (DSSAT v. 4.6) model for summer groundnut and

sensitivity analysis to climate change in middle Gujarat” submitted by

MOTE BALAJI MOHAN (Reg. No. 04-2378-2014) in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

(Agriculture) in the subject of AGRICULTURAL METEOROLOGY of the

Anand Agricultural University is a record of bonafide research work carried out

Place: Anand (Vyas Pandey)

Doctor of Philosophy (Agriculture) in the subject of Agricultural

Meteorology is the result of investigation done by MOTE BALAJI MOHAN

Emeritus Scientist (ICAR), Ex- Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural

Meteorology, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University,

Place : Anand (MOTE B. M.)

As a novice research at the initial stage of my work, planning, I had

Table No Table Index Page

Plat No. Title After page

1.1 Importance of groundnut

is also known as “peanut”, “monkeynut”, “monilanut”, “pinda” and “gobbernut”. It is

with a productivity of 1020 kg ha-1 (Anonymous, 2017).

tonnes, respectively. The average productivity of groundnut is 1603 kg ha-1 in kharif

the districts of Junagadh, Jamnagar, Rajkot, Amreli, Bhavnagar, Sabarkantha and

Banaskantha. The handpicked selected (HPS) groundnut is mainly exported from

Saurashtra region of Gujarat state.

skin (Pandey and Bhatt, 2012).

Soil structure is an important factor affecting groundnut production. Groundnut

seedling emergence, penetration of pegs, their development and harvesting owing to

is higher in soils with pH between 6.0-6.5 (Tsigbey et al., 2003).

1.3 Climatic requirement

400-500 mm during sowing, flowering and reproductive phases respectively. Low

in low yields (Prasad et al., 2000).

1.3.1 Heat unit requirement of the crop

The occurrence of different phenological event during growing season of any

yield (Swan et al., 1987). Phenological development of groundnut responds primarily

approximately linearly related to a base and optimum temperature. Pod yield is

partitioning of photosynthesis to pods and decreased duration of effective pod filling

phase (Nigam et al., 1998).

1.4 Crop simulation model

interception in crop canopies (Loomis and Williams, 1963). Subsequently different

allowing modeling of various crops in rotation. Crop simulation modeling can be

utilized for many purposes viz. as an aids in interpreting experimental results, as an

of climate change or of management practices on natural resources, such as water, or

BAMGRO, PNUTGRO, EPIC, ALAMANC, CROPSYST, APSIM, etc. are