CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Irrigation Practices and Water ManagementPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsHydrology and Drought Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of FAO-56 crop coefficient procedures for deficit irrigation management of cotton in a humid climate

Suleiman, Ayman A., Tojo Soler, Cecilia M., Hoogenboom, Gerrit·2007·Agricultural Water Management
DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2007.03.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agwat.2007.03.006

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Abdelhadi, 2000, Estimation of crop water requirements in arid region using Penman–Monteith equation with derived crop coefficient: a case study on Acala cotton in Sudan Gezira irrigated scheme, Agric. Water Manage., 45, 203, 10.1016/S0378-3774(99)00077-3 · DOI
  2. Adams, G., Slinsky, S., Boyd, S., Huffman, M., 2006. The Economic Outlook for U.S. Cotton 2006. National Cotton Council of America, pp. 1–78, http://www.cotton.org/econ/reports/upload/2006-Annual-Economic-Outlook.pdf (last verified on March 4, 2007).
  3. Alexandrov, 2001, Climate variation and crop production in Georgia, USA, during the twentieth century, Clim. Res., 17, 33, 10.3354/cr017033 · DOI
  4. Allen, 2000, Using the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient method over an irrigated region as part of an evapotranspiration intercomparison study, J. Hydro., 229, 27, 10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00194-8 · DOI
  5. Allen, R.G., Walter, I.A., Elliot, R., Howell, T., Itenfisu, D., Jensen, M., January 2005. The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation. ASCE-EWRI Task Committee Final Report, http://www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/water/asceewri/ (last verified on March 4, 2007). · DOI
  6. Amatya, 1995, Comparison of methods for estimating REF-ET, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 121, 427, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1995)121:6(427) · DOI
  7. Aujula, 2005, Cotton yield and water use efficiency at various levels of water and N through drip irrigation under two methods of planting, Agric. Water Manage., 71, 167, 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.06.010 · DOI
  8. Bednarz, 2005, Phenological and morphological components of cotton crop maturity, Crop Sci., 45, 1497, 10.2135/cropsci2004.0321 · DOI
  9. Boken, 2004, Potential of using NOAA-AVHRR data for estimating irrigated area to help solve an interstate water dispute, Int. J. Remote Sens., 25, 185, 10.1080/01431160310001618077 · DOI
  10. Doherty, 2003, Spatial scale effects of climate scenarios on simulated cotton production in the Southeastern USA, Clim. Change, 60, 99, 10.1023/A:1026030400826 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Guerra, 2005, Evaluation of on-farm irrigation applications using the simulation model EPIC, Irrig. Sci., 23, 171, 10.1007/s00271-005-0105-6 · DOI
  12. Howell, 2004, Evapotranspiration of full-, deficit-irrigated, and dryland cotton on the Northern Texas High Plains, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 4, 277, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2004)130:4(277) · DOI
  13. Hunsaker, 1999, Basal crop coefficients and water use for early maturity cotton, Trans. ASAE, 42, 927, 10.13031/2013.13273 · DOI
  14. Itenfisu, 2003, Comparison of reference evapotranspiration calculations as part of the ASCE standardization effort, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 129, 440, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2003)129:6(440) · DOI
  15. Irmak, 2003, Daily grass and alfalfa-reference evapotranspiration estimates and alfalfa-to-grass evapotranspiration ratios in Florida, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 129, 360, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2003)129:5(360) · DOI
  16. Kato, 2006, Determination of a crop coefficient for evaporation in a sparse sorghum field, Irrig. Drain., 55, 165, 10.1002/ird.225 · DOI
  17. Krause, 2005, Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment, Adv. Geosci., 5, 89, 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005 · DOI
  18. Legates, 1999, Evaluating the use of “goodness of fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation, Water Resour. Res., 35, 233, 10.1029/1998WR900018 · DOI
  19. Mohan, 1996, Comparison of methods for estimating REF-ET—discussion, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 122, 361, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1996)122:6(361) · DOI
  20. Pettigrew, 2004, Physiological consequences of moisture deficit stress in cotton, Crop Sci., 44, 1265, 10.2135/cropsci2004.1265 · DOI
  21. Priestley, 1972, On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters, Monthly Weather Rev., 100, 81, 10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0081:OTAOSH>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  22. Rajak, 2006, Comparative effects of drip and furrow irrigation on the yield and water productivity of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in a saline and waterlogged Vertisol, Agric. Water Manage., 83, 30, 10.1016/j.agwat.2005.11.005 · DOI
  23. Ritchie, 1999, Simple model to estimate field-measured soil water limits, Trans. ASAE, 42, 1609, 10.13031/2013.13326 · DOI
  24. Sammis, 1985, Evapotranspiration crop coefficients predicted using growing-degree-days, Trans. ASAE, 28, 773, 10.13031/2013.32336 · DOI
  25. Shurley, W.D., 2005. Conservation tillage in Georgia cotton production: results of a 2005 survey. In: Roberts, P.M., Kemerait, R.C., Perry, C.D. (Eds.), Cotton Research-Extension Report 2005. UGA/CPES Research-Extension Publication No. 6, May 2006, pp. 21–33.
  26. Stiller, 2004, Maturity and leaf shape as traits influencing cotton cultivar adaptation to dryland conditions, Agron. J., 96, 656, 10.2134/agronj2004.0656 · DOI
  27. Suleiman, 2007, Comparison of Priestley–Taylor and FAO-56 Penman–Monteith for daily reference evapotranspiration estimation in Georgia, USA, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 133, 175, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2007)133:2(175) · DOI
  28. Suleiman, 2003, Modeling soil water redistribution under second stage evaporation, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 67, 377
  29. Tennakoon, 2003, Crop water use and water use efficiency on irrigated cotton farms in Australia, Agric. Water Manage., 61, 179, 10.1016/S0378-3774(03)00023-4 · DOI
  30. Tsuji, 1994, Introduction, vol. 1
  31. Wanjura, 2002, Cotton yield and applied water relationships under drip irrigation, Agric. Water Manage., 55, 217, 10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00175-5 · DOI
  32. Willmott, 1982, Some comments on the evaluation of model performance, Bull. Am. Metro. Soc., 63, 1309, 10.1175/1520-0477(1982)063<1309:SCOTEO>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  33. Wise, J.R., 2002. Tri-State Water Wars: Impact on Metropolitan Atlanta's Future Growth. Geology 2001-Geologcal Resources and the Environment, pp. 1–12.
  34. Yoder, 2005, Evaluation of methods for estimating daily reference crop evapotranspiration at a site in the humid Southeast United States, Appl. Eng. Agric., 21, 197, 10.13031/2013.18153 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Suleiman, A. A., Tojo Soler, C. M., & Hoogenboom, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Jordan (JO)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Hoogenboom, Gerrit
ORCID
Venue
Agricultural Water Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-07
Volume
91
Issue
1-3
Pages
33-42
ISSN
0378-3774 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.agwat.2007.03.006
OpenAlex
W2059535015
Cited by
72
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Agricultural Water Management (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • University of Georgia
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Irrigation Practices and Water Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Hydrology and Drought Analysis
Keywords
deficit irrigation, cotton, reference evapotranspiration, irrigation scheduling, drip irrigation, humid climate, soil moisture, available water content, irrigation threshold, crop evapotranspiration, rainout shelters, canopy height, crop growth stages, water use efficiency, water conservation

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