Paper · 2013 · Piantadosi, J., Anderssen, R.S. and Boland J. (eds) MODSIM2013, 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation

Temperature increase and cotton crop phenology

Qunying Luo; Michael Bange; Loretta Clancy; et al.

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
6
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The daily outputs of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Conformal Cubic Atmospheric Model driven by four general circulation models (GCMs) were used by a stochastic weather generator, LARS-WG, to construct local climate change scenarios at nine key cotton production areas in eastern Australia. These climate change scenarios were then linked to daily temperaturedriven models of cotton phenology (the CSIRO Cotton Day Degree calculator and the Last Effective Flower tools) to examine the magnitude of the effects of increased temperature on the initiation and duration of key crop phenophases and on the occurrence of heat stress (hot days 35C maximum) and cold shocks ( 11C minimum) during the growing season. The results show that when using 1 Oct. sowing (1) the timing of emergence, 1st square (flower bud), 1st flower and 1st open boll advanced 1~9, 4~13, 5~14, 8~16 days respectively for the period centred on 2030 compared to the period centred on 1990; (2) when crops were planted 10 days earlier, emergence advanced more in most of the locations while other phenological events changed only slightly (approximately 1 day) in comparison with 1st. Oct. sowing; when crops were planted 10 days later all these events generally were delayed (approximately 1.5 days) in comparison with 1st Oct. sowing depending on locations; (3) the timing of the last effective square, last effective flower and last harvestable boll were delayed 7~12, 6~9 and 3~9 days respectively across locations and GCMs; and (4) combining the effects of an earlier time of first square and a later last effective square potentially increased the time for new fruit (squares) to be produced by up to two to three weeks. This analysis highlights the challenges associated with temperature with future climate change for future cotton production in Australia. Future research will be directed to assess the combined effects of changes in temperature, rainfall and atmospheric CO 2 concentration on cotton water use, water use efficiency, cotton lint yield, fibre quality (i.e. micronaire and fibre length); evaluate the effectiveness of a range of plant-based and management-based adaptation options in dealing with climate change risks; and quantify the cost and benefits of identified effective adaptation options, especially with the use of high yielding transgenic cotton with early high fruit loads in Australian high yielding (>2000kg lint /ha) irrigated systems.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Emergence advanced 1~9 days in 2030 versus 1990 with 1 Oct. sowing.

Treatment
period centred on 2030e0
Outcome
timing of emergencee0
Direction
advancede0
Value
1~9e0
Comparator
period centred on 1990e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the timing of emergence, 1st square (flower bud), 1st flower and 1st open boll advanced 1~9, 4~13, 5~14, 8~16 days respectively for the period centred on 2030 compared to the period centred on 1990”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–998 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

First square advanced 4~13 days.

Treatment
period centred on 2030e0
Outcome
1st square (flower bud)e0
Direction
advancede0
Value
4~13e0
Comparator
period centred on 1990e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the timing of emergence, 1st square (flower bud), 1st flower and 1st open boll advanced 1~9, 4~13, 5~14, 8~16 days respectively for the period centred on 2030 compared to the period centred on 1990”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–998 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

First flower advanced 5~14 days.

Treatment
period centred on 2030e0
Outcome
1st flowere0
Direction
advancede0
Value
5~14e0
Comparator
period centred on 1990e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the timing of emergence, 1st square (flower bud), 1st flower and 1st open boll advanced 1~9, 4~13, 5~14, 8~16 days respectively for the period centred on 2030 compared to the period centred on 1990”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–998 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

First open boll advanced 8~16 days.

Treatment
period centred on 2030e0
Outcome
1st open bolle0
Direction
advancede0
Value
8~16 dayse0
Comparator
period centred on 1990e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the timing of emergence, 1st square (flower bud), 1st flower and 1st open boll advanced 1~9, 4~13, 5~14, 8~16 days respectively for the period centred on 2030 compared to the period centred on 1990”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–998 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Planting 10 days earlier advanced emergence more at most locations.

Treatment
planted 10 days earliere0
Outcome
emergencee0
Direction
advanced moree0
Qualifier
most of the locationse0
Comparator
1st. Oct. sowinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when crops were planted 10 days earlier, emergence advanced more in most of the locations while other phenological events changed only slightly (approximately 1 day) in comparison with 1st. Oct. sowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1205 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Earlier planting changed other phenological events by approximately 1 day.

Treatment
planted 10 days earliere0
Outcome
other phenological eventse0
Direction
changed only slightlye0
Value
approximately 1 daye0
Comparator
1st. Oct. sowinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when crops were planted 10 days earlier, emergence advanced more in most of the locations while other phenological events changed only slightly (approximately 1 day) in comparison with 1st. Oct. sowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1205 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Planting 10 days later delayed phenological events by approximately 1.5 days.

Treatment
planted 10 days latere0
Outcome
all these eventse0
Direction
delayede0
Value
approximately 1.5 dayse0
Comparator
1st Oct. sowinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when crops were planted 10 days later all these events generally were delayed (approximately 1.5 days) in comparison with 1st Oct. sowing depending on locations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1207–1367 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Last effective square was delayed 7~12 days.

Outcome
timing of the last effective squaree0
Direction
delayede0
Value
7~12e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the timing of the last effective square, last effective flower and last harvestable boll were delayed 7~12, 6~9 and 3~9 days respectively across locations and GCMs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1373–1536 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Last effective flower was delayed 6~9 days.

Outcome
last effective flowere0
Direction
delayede0
Value
6~9e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the timing of the last effective square, last effective flower and last harvestable boll were delayed 7~12, 6~9 and 3~9 days respectively across locations and GCMs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1373–1536 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultprojected

Claim · model-written summary

Last harvestable boll was delayed 3~9 days.

Outcome
last harvestable bolle0
Direction
delayede0
Value
3~9 dayse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the timing of the last effective square, last effective flower and last harvestable boll were delayed 7~12, 6~9 and 3~9 days respectively across locations and GCMs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1373–1536 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositiveprojected

Claim · model-written summary

The interval for producing new squares potentially increased by up to two to three weeks.

Outcome
time for new fruit (squares) to be producede0
Direction
increasede0
Value
two to three weekse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“potentially increased the time for new fruit (squares) to be produced by up to two to three weeks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1637–1734 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑