Cited by 33Research in Cotton CultivationIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science

The Cotton Simulation Model "COTTAM":Fruiting Model Calibration and Testing

B. S. Jackson, G. F. Arkin, A. B. Hearn·1988·Transactions of the ASAE

Abstract

ABSTRACT ALGORITHMS contained in the simulation model COTTAM for determining the morphological development of cotton in response to environment are described. Crop growth rate is represented by a number of growing bolls called carrying capacity, and fruit shedding occurs as a function of the ratio of boll load and carrying capacity. Vegetative growth is defined as the increase in fruiting site numbers. Leaf area increases as fruiting site numbers increase. As boll load increases, vegetative growth (increase in fruiting site numbers) declines and fruit shedding increases. A root extraction zone penetrates a layered soil profile as a function of soil properties. Water stress is defined as a function of plant available water in the root extraction zone and influences vegetative growth rates and crop growth rates (carrying capacity). Fruiting algorithms were calibrated using field and greenhouse data. Numbers of fruiting sites, growing bolls, open bolls, square and boll phenological development, boll weights, leaf growth and senescence, growth of a root extraction zone, and water extraction are computed in response to daily weather data. Simulated plant development may also be influenced by plant maturity-type, plant population and row spacing, and water stress. Simulation results using COTTAM were compared to fruit numbers measured in field-grown cotton near Temple, TX, Lubbock, TX and Fresno, CA. Crops were grown at these three locations using different water application scenarios. Measured lint yields ranged from 528 to 1,583 kg ha~^ Analyses compared the timing of yield development, fruit numbers, and final yields. Simulated timing and maximum numbers of squares, growing bolls, and open bolls compared well with those measured at all three locations. At all locations, the simulated date 50% of final boll numbers were open averaged within 3 days of those measured. The standard error of estimate for simulated lint yields at all three locations was 135 kg ha~^

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.13031/2013.30790

Cites

Statistics

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

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.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jackson, B. S., Arkin, G. F., & Hearn, A. B.
Venue
Transactions of the ASAE
Published
1988
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
0846-0854
ISSN
  • 0001-2351 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-0059
OpenAlex
W2314145379
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Transactions of the ASAE (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Research in Cotton Cultivation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Irrigation Practices and Water Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Keywords
cotton, crop simulation models, boll shedding, carrying capacity, water stress, plant available water, leaf area, lint yield, model validation

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