Su Kısıtı Koşullarında Ayçiçeği Veriminin Optimizasyonu: Sulama Stratejileri, Tohum Çeşitleri ve Simülasyon Modellerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Year 2025, Volume: 22 Issue: 2, 496 - 512, 26.05.2025

Ozan Öztürk , Erdem Bahar , Selçuk Özer , Cantekin Kıvrak , Mehmet Gür , Fatih Bakanoğulları , Volkan Atav

https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1567064

Abstract

Bu çalışma, iklim değişikliğinin neden olduğu artan su kısıtlamalarının ayçiçeği verimi üzerindeki etkisini ve farklı tohum çeşitlerinin bu zorlayıcı koşullara uyumunu incelemiştir. Üç sulama stratejisi uygulanmıştır: S0 (sulamadan), S1 (kısmi sulama) ve S2 (tam sulama). Ayrıca, iki ayçiçeği çeşidi olan Sanay ve Pioneer kullanılarak sulama ve tohum çeşitlerinin yaprak alan indeksi (LAI), normalize edilmiş fark bitki indeksi (NDVI), bitki boyu ve verim gibi temel parametreler üzerindeki etkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, Pioneer çeşidinin genel olarak Sanay'a kıyasla daha yüksek LAI ve verim değerleri sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. En yüksek LAI değeri olan 4.43, Temmuz ayında tam sulama (S2) altında kaydedilmiştir. NDVI sonuçları, tam sulanan Pioneer bitkilerinin daha yüksek fotosentetik aktivite gösterdiğini ve su stresine daha iyi uyum sağladığını göstermektedir. Sanay çeşidi ise sulama olmaksızın (S0) bile daha uzun bitkiler ve nispeten yüksek biyokütle üretimi ile dikkat çekmiştir. Ancak, Pioneer çeşidi optimum su koşulları altında en yüksek verim performansını sağlamıştır. Her iki çeşit de en yüksek verim değerlerini S2 sulama stratejisinde elde etmiş olup, etkili su yönetiminin ayçiçeği üretimi için önemini vurgulamaktadır. Deneysel verileri desteklemek amacıyla AquaCrop, DSSAT ve WOFOST olmak üzere üç farklı ürün simülasyon modeli kullanılarak verim tahminleri yapılmıştır. Bu modeller arasında, AquaCrop en doğru tahminleri sağlamış ve özellikle tam sulama koşullarında gözlemlenen verim değerleri ile güçlü bir uyum göstermiştir. Ancak, modeller arasında gözlemlenen tahmin farklılıkları, bu araçların farklı çevresel koşullara göre dikkatle değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak, uygun tohum çeşitlerinin seçimi ve optimize edilmiş sulama stratejilerinin geliştirilmesi, iklim değişikliğinin neden olduğu su kıtlığı koşullarında tarımsal sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanması açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Farklı sulama rejimleri altında ürün verimlerinin doğru bir şekilde simüle edilmesi, karar verme süreçlerini destekleyebilir; ancak model çıktılarındaki değişkenlik, modellerin çevresel faktörler göz önüne alınarak doğrulanmasının gerekliliğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Ayçiçeği, Kısıtlı sulama, Tohum çeşitleri, Simülasyon modelleri, İklim değişikliği, Su yönetimi, Verim tahmini

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma için etik kuruldan izin alınmasına gerek yoktur.

Supporting Institution

TAGEM (Tarımsal Araştırmalar ve Politikalar Genel Müdürlüğü)

Project Number

TAGEM/TSKA/16/A13/P08/01/A.P-7

Optimizing Sunflower Yield Under Water Constraints: A Comparative Analysis of Irrigation Strategies, Seed Varieties, and Simulation Models

Abstract

This study explored the impact of increasing water restrictions, driven by climate change, on sunflower yield and assessed the adaptability of different seed varieties to these challenging conditions. Three irrigation strategies were applied: S0 (no irrigation), S1 (semi-irrigation), and S2 (full irrigation). Two sunflower cultivars, Sanay and Pioneer, were tested to evaluate how irrigation and seed variety influence key parameters such as leaf area index (LAI), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), plant height, and yield. The results indicated that the Pioneer variety generally exhibited higher LAI and yield values compared to Sanay. The maximum LAI value of 4.43 was observed in July under full irrigation (S2). NDVI results further supported these findings, showing that fully irrigated Pioneer plants had higher photosynthetic activity, indicating better adaptation to water stress. While Sanay produced taller plants and relatively high biomass even without irrigation (S0), Pioneer achieved superior yield performance under optimal water conditions. Both cultivars recorded their highest yields under the S2 treatment, highlighting the significance of effective water management for sunflower production. To complement the experimental data, yield predictions were performed using three crop simulation models: AquaCrop, DSSAT, and WOFOST. Among these, AquaCrop provided the most accurate predictions, especially under full irrigation, showing strong alignment with observed yield values. However, the variability observed in model predictions emphasizes the need for careful assessment of these tools across different environmental conditions. In conclusion, selecting appropriate seed varieties and developing optimized irrigation strategies are critical for maintaining agricultural sustainability under water-limited conditions driven by climate change. The accurate simulation of crop yields under different irrigation regimes can further support decision-making processes, but variability in model outputs highlights the importance of model validation based on environmental factors.

Keywords

Sunflower, Deficit irrigation, Seed varieties, Simulation models, Climate change, Water management, Yield prediction

Ethical Statement

There is no need to obtain permission from the ethics committee for this study.

Supporting Institution

TAGEM (General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies)

Project Number

TAGEM/TSKA/16/A13/P08/01/A.P-7

References

• Abedinpour, M. (2021). The Comparison of DSSAT-CERES and AquaCrop Models for Wheat Under Water–Nitrogen Interactions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analys, 52: 2002-2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2021.1908323
• Anonymous (2022a). Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü (MGM) Türkiye climate. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/iklim/turkiye-iklimi.aspx. Accessed Date: 10.05.2023.
• Anonymous (2022b) Tekirdağ Ticaret ve Sanayi Odaso (TTSO). Agriculture. http://www.tekirdagtso.org.tr/tr/tarim-16 (Accessed Date: 10.08.2022).
• Aydoğdu, M., Yıldız, H., Gürkan, H., Sırlı, B. A., and Tuğaç, M. G. (2023). Evaluation of yield prediction performance of DSSAT CSM-CERES-Wheat model in some bread wheat varieties. International Journal of Environmental and Geoinformatics, 10(1): 51-66.
• Begna, T. (2020). Effects of drought stress on crop production and productivity. International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences, 6(9): 34-43.
• Bingham, F. and Martin, J. (1956). Effects of soil phosphorus on growth and minor element nutrition of citrus. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 20(3): 382-385. https://doi.org/10.2136/SSSAJ1956.03615995002000030023X
• Blake, G. R. and Hartge, K. H. (1986). Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis: Part 1 Physical and mineralogical methods, 5: 363-375.
• Blum, A. (2009). Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Research, 112: 119-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.03.009
• Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W. and Hoogenboom, G. (2018). Simulation of crop growth: CROPGRO model. In: Peart, R.M. (Ed.), Agricultural systems modeling and simulation (pp. 651-692). CRC Press.
• Castañeda-Vera, A., Leffelaar, P. A., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Cantero-Martínez, C. and Mínguez, M. I. (2015). Selecting crop models for decision making in wheat insurance. European Journal of Agronomy, 68: 97-116.
• Connor, D. J. and Hall, A. J. (1997). Sunflower physiology. In: Sunflower Technology and Production, Ed(s): Schneiter, A. A. pp. 113-182. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr35.c4
• Debaeke, P., Bedoussac, L., Bonnet, C., Bret-Mestries, E., Seassau, C., Gavaland, A. and Justes, E. (2017). Sunflower crop: Environmental-friendly and agroecological. Oilseeds and Fats, Crops and Lipids, 24(3): D304.
• Dewenam, L., Er-raki, S., Ezzahar, J. and Chehbouni, A. (2021). Performance evaluation of the WOFOST model for estimating evapotranspiration, soil water content, grain yield and total above-ground biomass of winter wheat in Tensift Al Haouz (Morocco): Application to yield gap estimation. Agronomy, 11(12): 2480. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122480
• Elsadek, E., Zhang, K., Mousa, A., Ezaz, G. T., Tola, T. L., Shaghaleh, H. and Alhaj Hamoud, Y. (2023). Study on the in-field water balance of direct-seeded rice with various irrigation regimes under arid climatic conditions in Egypt using the AquaCrop model. Agronomy, 13(2): 609.
• Eltarabily, M., Burke, J. and Bali, K. (2020). Impact of deficit irrigation on shallow saline groundwater contribution and sunflower productivity in the Imperial Valley, California. Water, 12(2): 571. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020571
• Fahad, S., Bajwa, A., Nazir, U., Anjum, S., Farooq, A., Zohaib, A., Sadia, S., Nasim, W., Adkins, S., Saud, S., Ihsan, M., Alharby, H., Wu, C., Wang, D. and Huang, J. (2017). Crop production under drought and heat stress: Plant responses and management options. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8: 1147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01147
• Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D. and Basra, S. (2011). Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29: 185-212. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008021
• Fulda, S., Mikkat, S., Stegmann, H. and Horn, R. (2011). Physiology and proteomics of drought stress acclimation in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Plant Biology, 13(4): 632-642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2010.00426.x
• Garofalo, P. and Rinaldi, M. (2015). Leaf gas exchange and radiation use efficiency of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in response to different deficit irrigation strategies: From solar radiation to plant growth analysis. European Journal of Agronomy, 64: 88-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2014.12.010
• Gee, G. W., and Bauder, J. W. (1986). Particle Size Analysis. In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical And Mineralogical Methods. Ed(s): Klute, A., pp. 383-411, ASA-SSSA.
• Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York, U.S.A.
• Gürkan, H. (2023). Evaluation of the impacts of climate change on sunflower with AquaCrop model. Tekirdağ Journal of Agricultural Faculty, 20(4): 933-947.
• Hsiao, T. C., Heng, L., Steduto, P., Rojas‐Lara, B., Raes, D. and Fereres, E. (2009). AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: III. Parameterization and testing for maize. Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 448-459.
• Hussain, M., Farooq, S., Hasan, W., Ul-Allah, S., Tanveer, M., Farooq, M. and Nawaz, A. (2018). Drought stress in sunflower: Physiological effects and its management through breeding and agronomic alternatives. Agricultural Water Management, 201: 152-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.01.028
• Hussain, M., Rauf, S., Riaz, M., Al-Khayri, J. and Monneveux, P. (2017). Determination of drought tolerance related traits in Helianthus argophyllus, Helianthus annuus, and their hybrids. Breeding Science, 67: 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.16095
• Jackson, M. L. (1979). Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced Course. Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, U.S.A.
• Jones, J. W., He, J., Boote, K. J., Wilkens, P. W., Porter, C. H., and Hu, Z. (2011). Estimating DSSAT cropping system cultivar-specific parameters using Bayesian techniques. In: Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling: Vol. 2. Working with Dynamic Crop Models. Ed(s): Whitmore, A. J., Dent, F. J. and Dent, J. F. Dent, (pp. 365–394). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.
• Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C. H., Boote, K. J., Batchelor, W. D., Hunt, L. A. and Ritchie, J. T. (2003). The DSSAT cropping system model. European Journal of Agronomy, 18(3-4): 235-265.
• Kaya, Y., Nalcaiyi, A., Erdal, S., Arslan, O., Çiçek, N., Pekcan, V., Yilmaz, M., Evci, G. and Ekmekçi, Y. (2016). Evaluation of male inbred lines of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) for resistance to drought via chlorophyll fluorescence. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 21: 162-173. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.15482
• Klute, A. (1986). Water Retention: Laboratory Methods. In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Ed(s): Klute, A., pp. 635-662, ASA-SSSA.
• Loeppert, R. H. and Suarez, D. L. (1996). Carbonate and Gypsum. In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods. Ed(s): Sparks, D. L., pp. 437-474,. ASA-SSSA.
• Mokhtar, N. and Kasem, A. (2021). Assessment of AquaCrop model in simulating wheat crop water use and productivity in Middle Egypt. Middle East Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(1): 153-164. https://doi.org/10.36632/mejas/2021.11.1.11
• Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D. and Veith, T. L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3): 885-900.
• Önemli, F. (2005). The self-fertilization rates of some hybrid varieties used in sunflower production. Journal of Tekirdağ Agricultural Faculty, 2(1): 7-12.
• Osakabe, Y., Osakabe, K., Shinozaki, K. and Tran, L. (2014). Response of plants to water stress. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5: 86. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00086
• Pereira, L., Oweis, T. and Zairi, A. (2002). Irrigation management under water scarcity. Agricultural Water Management, 57: 175-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(02)00075-6
• Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., and Fereres, E. (2009). AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description. Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 438-447.
• Ran, H., Kang, S., Hu, X., Li, S., Wang, W. and Liu, F. (2020). Capability of a solar energy-driven crop model for simulating water consumption and yield of maize and its comparison with a water-driven crop model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 287: 107955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.107955
• Razzaghi, F., Zhou, Z., Andersen, M. N. and Plauborg, F. (2017). Simulation of potato yield in temperate condition by the AquaCrop model. Agricultural Water Management, 191: 113-123.
• Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A. and Deering, D. W. (1974). Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. NASA Special Publication, 351(1): 309.
• Sadras, V., Villalobos, F., Orgaz, F. and Fereres, E. (2016). Effects of water stress on crop production. In: Soil Quality and Plant Nutrition. Ed(s): Sparks, D. L. pp. 189-204. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46116-8_14
• Sarazin, V., Duclercq, J., Guillot, X., Sangwan, B. and Sangwan, R. (2017). Water-stressed sunflower transcriptome analysis revealed important molecular markers involved in drought stress response and tolerance. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 142: 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.08.005
• Sims, J. T. (2000). Soil Test Phosphorus. In: Methods of Phosphorus Analysis For Soils, Sediments, Residuals, And Waters. Ed(s): Olsen P. and Pierzynski, G. M., pp. 20-21, SERA-IEG 17.
• Soil Survey Lab Staff, USDA (1975). Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys (No. 436.4 So3). US Govt Print Off.
• Soothar, R. K., Singha, A., Soomro, S. A., Chachar, A .U. D., Kalhoro, F. and Rahaman, M. A. (2021). Effect of different soil moisture regimes on plant growth and water use efficiency of sunflower: Experimental study and modeling. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 45(1): 1-8.
• Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Raes, D. and Fereres, E. (2009). AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 426-437.
• Tezara, W., Mitchell, V., Driscoll, S. P. and Lawlor, D. W. (2002). Effects of water deficit and its interaction with CO2 supply on the biochemistry and physiology of photosynthesis in sunflower. Journal of Experimental Botany, 53(375): 1781-1791.
• Todorovic, M., Albrizio, R., Zivotic, L., Saab, M. T., Stöckle, C. and Steduto, P. (2009). Assessment of AquaCrop, CropSyst, and WOFOST models in the simulation of sunflower growth under different water regimes. Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 509-521.
• Unger, P. W. (1990). Sunflower. In: Irrigation of Agricultural Crops (Agronomy Monograph No. 30). Ed(s): Stewart, B. A. and Nielsen, D. R., pp. 775-794, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison (WI), U.S.A.
• Van Diepen, C. V., Wolf, J. V., Van Keulen, H. and Rappoldt, C. (1989). WOFOST: a simulation model of crop production. Soil Use and Management, 5(1): 16-24.
• Van Ittersum, M. K., Leffelaar, P. A., Van Keulen, H., Kropff, M. J., Bastiaans, L. and Goudriaan, J. (2003). On approaches and applications of the Wageningen crop models. European Journal of Agronomy, 18(3-4): 201-234.
• Wakeel, A. (2013). Potassium -sodium interactions in soil and plant under saline‐sodic conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 176(3): 344-354.
• Welles, J. M. and Norman, J. M. (1991). Instrument for indirect measurement of canopy architecture. Agronomy Journal, 83(5): 818-825.
• Yiğit, D. B., and Candoğan, B. N. (2019). Yield estimation of potato under different irrigation regimes using FAO AquaCrop model. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, 7(1): 91-98.
• Zhang, J., Zhang, H., Sima, M., Trout, T., Malone, R. and Wang, L. (2021). Simulated deficit irrigation and climate change effects on sunflower production in Eastern Colorado with CSM-CROPGRO-Sunflower in RZWQM2. Agricultural Water Management, 246: 106672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106672
• Zhu, J., Zeng, W., Ma, T., Lei, G., Zha, Y., Fang, Y., Wu, J. and Huang, J. (2018). Testing and improving the WOFOST model for sunflower simulation on saline soils of Inner Mongolia, China. Agronomy, 8(9): 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8090172