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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The DSSAT cropping system model
Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C. H., Boote, K. J., Batchelor, W. D., Hunt, L. A., Wilkens, P. W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A. J., & Ritchie, J. T. (2003) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s1161-0301(02)00107-7 · Cited by 4,465
Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain
Monteith, J. L. (1977) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1977.0140 · Cited by 3,484
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., & Fereres, E. (2009) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2008.0140s · Cited by 1,053
Self-citation
Cited by
AquaCrop: FAO's crop water productivity and yield response model
Vanuytrecht, E., Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Fereres, E., Heng, L. K., Garcia Vila, M., & Mejias Moreno, P. (2014) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.08.005 · Cited by 403
Self-citationIntroduction: Can Water Use Efficiency Be Modeled Well Enough to Impact Crop Management?
Evett, S. R., & Tolk, J. A. (2009) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2009.0038xs · Cited by 80
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.