Abstract
Abstract . Interest in cover crops has been increasing in the Texas Rolling Plains (TRP) region, mainly to improve soil health. However, there are concerns that cover crops could potentially reduce soil water and thereby affect the yield of subsequent cash crops. Previous field studies from this region have demonstrated mixed results, with some showing a reduction in cash crop yield due to cover crops and others indicating no significant impact of cover crops on subsequent cotton fiber yield. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the CROPGRO-Cotton and CERES-Wheat modules within the cropping system model (CSM) of the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) for the TRP region, and (2) use the evaluated model to assess the long-term effects of growing winter wheat as a cover crop on water balances and seed cotton yield under irrigated and dryland conditions. The two DSSAT crop modules were calibrated using measured data on soil water and crop yield from four treatments: (1) irrigated cotton without a cover crop (CwoC-I), (2) irrigated cotton with winter wheat as a cover crop (CwC-I), (3) dryland cotton without a cover crop (CwoC-D), and (4) dryland cotton with a winter wheat cover crop (CwC-D) at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Station at Chillicothe from 2011 to 2015. The average percent error (PE) between the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton simulated and measured seed cotton yield was -10.1% and -1.0% during the calibration and evaluation periods, respectively, and the percent root mean square error (%RMSE) was 11.9% during calibration and 27.6% during evaluation. For simulation of aboveground biomass by the CSM-CERES-Wheat model, the PE and %RMSE were 8.9% and 9.1%, respectively, during calibration and -0.9% and 21.8%, respectively, during evaluation. Results from the long-term (2001-2015) simulations indicated that there was no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield and soil water due to growing winter wheat as a cover crop. Keywords: CERES-Wheat, Cover crop, Crop simulation model, CROPGRO-Cotton, DSSAT, Seed cotton yield, Soil water.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield simulation had percent error of -10.1% during calibration.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Outcome
- percent error (PE)e0
- Value
- -10.1%e0
- Qualifier
- calibratione0
- Setting
- Chillicothee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average percent error (PE) between the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton simulated and measured seed cotton yield was -10.1% and -1.0% during the calibration and evaluation periods, respectively”
e1“at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Station at Chillicothe”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield simulation had percent error of -1.0% during evaluation.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- percent error (PE)e0
- Value
- -1.0%e0
- Qualifier
- evaluatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average percent error (PE) between the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton simulated and measured seed cotton yield was -10.1% and -1.0% during the calibration and evaluation periods, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield simulation had RMSE of 11.9% during calibration.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Outcome
- %RMSEe0
- Value
- 11.9%e0
- Qualifier
- calibratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the percent root mean square error (%RMSE) was 11.9% during calibration and 27.6% during evaluation”
e1“CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield simulation had RMSE of 27.6% during evaluation.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Outcome
- %RMSEe0
- Value
- 27.6%e0
- Qualifier
- evaluatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the percent root mean square error (%RMSE) was 11.9% during calibration and 27.6% during evaluation”
e1“CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat biomass simulation had percent error of 8.9% during calibration.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Outcome
- PEe0
- Value
- 8.9%e0
- Qualifier
- calibratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For simulation of aboveground biomass by the CSM-CERES-Wheat model, the PE and %RMSE were 8.9% and 9.1%, respectively, during calibration and -0.9% and 21.8%, respectively, during evaluation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat biomass simulation had RMSE of 9.1% during calibration.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- %RMSEe0
- Value
- 9.1%e0
- Qualifier
- calibratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For simulation of aboveground biomass by the CSM-CERES-Wheat model, the PE and %RMSE were 8.9% and 9.1%, respectively, during calibration and -0.9% and 21.8%, respectively, during evaluation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat biomass simulation had percent error of -0.9% during evaluation.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- PEe0
- Value
- -0.9%e0
- Qualifier
- evaluatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For simulation of aboveground biomass by the CSM-CERES-Wheat model, the PE and %RMSE were 8.9% and 9.1%, respectively, during calibration and -0.9% and 21.8%, respectively, during evaluation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat biomass simulation had RMSE of 21.8% during evaluation.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- %RMSEe0
- Value
- 21.8%e0
- Qualifier
- evaluatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For simulation of aboveground biomass by the CSM-CERES-Wheat model, the PE and %RMSE were 8.9% and 9.1%, respectively, during calibration and -0.9% and 21.8%, respectively, during evaluation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term simulations found no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield with winter wheat cover crop.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- growing winter wheat as a cover crope0
- Outcome
- average seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- no substantial reductione0
- Qualifier
- long-term (2001-2015)e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results from the long-term (2001-2015) simulations indicated that there was no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield and soil water due to growing winter wheat as a cover crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term simulations found no substantial reduction in soil water with winter wheat cover crop.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- growing winter wheat as a cover crope0
- Outcome
- soil watere0
- Direction
- no substantial reductione0
- Qualifier
- long-term (2001-2015)e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results from the long-term (2001-2015) simulations indicated that there was no substantial reduction in average seed cotton yield and soil water due to growing winter wheat as a cover crop.”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · soil: physics · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Triticum aestivum · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →cover crop · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →cover crop · soil: physics · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.