ENSO-based climate variability affects water use efficiency of rainfed cotton grown in the southeastern USA
Abstract
The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-based climate variability can have a significant impact on crop production due to its effect on yield variation on space and time. The main objective of this study was to determine the impact of ENSO-based climate variability on water use efficiency (WUE) of rainfed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown in the southeastern USA. Specific objectives were to determine the spatial and temporal variability of WUE of rainfed cotton as related to ENSO phases. The CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model, previously calibrated and evaluated with observed data, was used to simulate seed yield and evapotranspiration of rainfed cotton for selected counties in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia for the period from 1950 to 2006. For each location, model simulations from nine planting dates were categorized into the ENSO phases using the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) index. Then, simulation outputs were used to calculate WUE as the ratio of cotton seed yield to crop evapotranspiration. For each location and planting date, normal values for WUE were obtained and deviations from normal for each ENSO phase were determined. Exploratory and nonparametric analyses were used to analyze the results. Our results suggest that WUE of rainfed cotton is differentially affected by ENSO. During El Niño years WUE deviations from normal tended to be negative for early planting dates but positive and larger for late planting dates, no tendency was found for the entire planting window d…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Simulated seed cotton yield for rainfed cotton was higher during La Niña than during El Niño and neutral years, ranging from 3044 to 3304 kg ha-1 during El Niño years, from 2950 to 3267 kg ha-1 during neutral years, and from 2891 to 3383 kg ha-1 during La Niña years.
“Simulated seed cotton yield for rainfed cotton was higher during La Niña than during El Niño and neutral years, ranging from 3044 to 3304 kg ha -1 during El Niño years, from 2950 to 3267 kg ha -1 during neutral years, and from 2891 to 3383 kg ha -1 during La Niña years.”
From Development and Application of Process-based Simulation Models for Cotton Production: A Review of Past, Present, and Future Directions (2014) · cites this paper as Garcia y Garcia et al. (2010)
Seed cotton yield and WUE of rainfed cotton were differentially affected by ENSO, and seed cotton yield was differentially affected by rainfall, air temperature, and solar irradiance within ENSO phase.
“Seed cotton yield and WUE of rainfed cotton were differentially affected by ENSO, and seed cotton yield was differentially affected by rainfall, air temperature, and solar irradiance within ENSO phase.”
From Development and Application of Process-based Simulation Models for Cotton Production: A Review of Past, Present, and Future Directions (2014) · cites this paper as Garcia y Garcia et al. (2010)
Simulated seed cotton yield of rainfed cotton showed a stronger spatial dependence during El Niño and neutral years than during La Niña years.
“Also, simulated seed cotton yield of rainfed cotton showed a stronger spatial dependence during El Niño and neutral years than during La Niña years.”
From Development and Application of Process-based Simulation Models for Cotton Production: A Review of Past, Present, and Future Directions (2014) · cites this paper as Garcia y Garcia et al. (2010)
Cites
Use of Global Sensitivity Analysis for CROPGRO Cotton Model Development
Pathak, T. B., Fraisse, C. W., Jones, J. W., Messina, C. D., & Hoogenboom, G. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.24082 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationHydroLOGIC: An irrigation management system for Australian cotton
Richards, Q. D., Bange, M. P., & Johnston, S. B. (2008) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.009 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rahman, M. H. U., Ahmad, A., Wajid, A., Hussain, M., Rasul, F., Ishaque, W., Islam, M. A., Shelia, V., Awais, M., Ullah, A., et al. (2019) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.007 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Thorp, K. R., Ale, S., Bange, M. P., Barnes, E. M., Hoogenboom, G., Lascano, R. J., McCarthy, A. C., Nair, S., Paz, J. O., Rajan, N., et al. (2014) · Journal of Cotton Science · doi:10.56454/oovc6073 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Garcia y Garcia, A., Persson, T., Paz, J. O., Fraisse, C., & Hoogenboom, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Venue
- Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 629-635
- ISSN
- 0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008830542
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate Program Office
- USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
- State and Federal funds
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Irrigation Practices and Water Management
- Keywords
- ENSO, climate variability, water use efficiency, rainfed cotton, Gossypium hirsutum, sowing date, evapotranspiration, La Niña, El Niño, southeastern United States, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
