Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

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

Simulating Yield Response of Quinoa to Water Availability with AquaCrop

Geerts, Sam, Raes, Dirk, Garcia, Magali, Miranda, Roberto, Cusicanqui, Jorge A., Taboada, Cristal, Mendoza, Jorge, Huanca, Ruben, Mamani, Armando, Condori, Octavio, Mamani, Judith, Morales, Bernardo, Osco, Victor, Steduto, Pasquale·2009·Agronomy Journal

Abstract

The modeling of yield response to water is expected to play an increasingly important role in the optimization of crop water productivity (WP) in agriculture. During 3 yr (2004–2007), field experiments were conducted to assess the crop response to water stress of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in the Bolivian Altiplano (4000 masl) under different watering conditions (from rain fed, RF, to full irrigation, FI). Crop physiological measurements and comparisons between simulated and observed soil water content (SWC), canopy cover (CC), biomass production, and final seed yield of a selected number of fields were used to calibrate the AquaCrop model. Subsequently, the model was validated for different locations and varieties using data from other experimental fields and from farmers' fields. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed for key input variables of the parameterized model. AquaCrop simulated well the decrease of the harvest index (HI) of quinoa in response to drought during early grain filling as observed in the field. Further‐on, the procedure for triggering early canopy senescence was deactivated in the model as observed in the field. Biomass WP (g m−2) decreased by 9% under fully irrigated conditions compared with RF and deficit irrigation (DI) conditions, most probably due to severe nutrient depletion. Satisfactory results were obtained for the simulation of total biomass and seed yield [validation regression R2 = 0.87 and 0.83, and Nash‐Sutcliff efficiency (EF) = 0.82 and 0.79, respectively]. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the AquaCrop model for simulation of quinoa growth and production, although further improvements of the model for soil nutrient depletion, pests, diseases, and frost are also possible.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2134/agronj2008.0137s

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, J. A., Taboada, C., Mendoza, J., Huanca, R., Mamani, A., Condori, O., Mamani, J., Morales, B., Osco, V., & Steduto, P.
Venue
Agronomy Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
499-508
ISSN
  • 0002-1962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0645
OpenAlex
W2038493861
Cited by
200
References
2
FWCI
13.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simulating Yield Response of Quinoa to Water Availability with AquaCrop. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/agronj2008.0137s
The paper
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, J. A., Taboada, C., Mendoza, J., Huanca, R., Mamani, A., Condori, O., Mamani, J., Morales, B., Osco, V., & Steduto, P. (2009). Simulating Yield Response of Quinoa to Water Availability with AquaCrop. Agronomy Journal. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0137s

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.