Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of AquaCrop, CropSyst, and WOFOST Models in the Simulation of Sunflower Growth under Different Water Regimes

Todorovic, Mladen, Albrizio, Rossella, Zivotic, Ljubomir, Saab, Marie‐Therese Abi, Stöckle, Claudio, Steduto, Pasquale·2009·Agronomy Journal

Abstract

This work compares the performance of AquaCrop, a crop simulation model developed by FAO, with that of two well established models, CropSyst and WOFOST, in simulating sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) growth under different water regimes in a Mediterranean environment. The models differ in the level of complexity describing crop development, in the main growth modules driving the simulation of biomass growth, and in the number of input parameters. AquaCrop is exclusively based on the water‐driven growth module, in that transpiration is converted into biomass through a water productivity (WP) parameter; Cropsyst is based on both water and radiation driven modules, while WOFOST simulates crop growth using a carbon driven approach and fraction of intercepted radiation. The data used in the analysis were obtained in field experiments with hybrid Sanbro_MR, performed in a typical Mediterranean area of Southern Italy in 2005 and 2007. The models were calibrated on data from a full irrigation treatment in 2007, and were validated on a full irrigation treatment in 2005 and several deficit irrigation (DI) treatments, including regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) and rain‐fed (RF) conditions. Although AquaCrop required less input information than CropSyst and WOFOST, it performed similarly to them in simulating both biomass and yield at harvesting. The use of different numbers of parameters and crop growth modules by the tested models did not influence substantially the simulation results. Therefore, for management purposes and in conditions of limited input information, the use of simpler models should be encouraged.

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/agronj2008.0166s

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Todorovic, M., Albrizio, R., Zivotic, L., Saab, M. A., Stöckle, C., & Steduto, P.
Venue
Agronomy Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
509-521
ISSN
  • 0002-1962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0645
OpenAlex
W2033873961
Cited by
272
References
3
FWCI
12.47
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: Assessment of AquaCrop, CropSyst, and WOFOST Models in the Simulation of Sunflower Growth under Different Water Regimes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/agronj2008.0166s
The paper
Todorovic, M., Albrizio, R., Zivotic, L., Saab, M. A., Stöckle, C., & Steduto, P. (2009). Assessment of AquaCrop, CropSyst, and WOFOST Models in the Simulation of Sunflower Growth under Different Water Regimes. Agronomy Journal. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0166s

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.