Abstract
There is mounting evidence that climate change could be threatening the viability of cotton production in regions of Australia. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a cotton-wheat rotation system in dealing with climate change for the period centred on 2030 by linking the outputs of the CSIRO Conformal Cubic Atmospheric Model with the Agricultural Production System sIMulator (APSIM) through a stochastic weather generator, LARS-WG. For irrigated cotton, we considered 3 crop sequences and 9 production areas spanning the current industry. For rain-fed cotton, we considered 2 crop sequences with 3 cotton row configurations and 4 production areas. Simulation results show that (1) for irrigated cotton, cotton 3 yr in and 1 yr out would perform the best in terms of cotton lint yield; (2) crop yields would decrease in a changing climate across crop sequences at most of the locations with wheat yield decreasing more than cotton; (3) for rain-fed cotton, continuous cotton would perform better at Emerald, Dalby and/or Narrabri under solid and single skip row configurations, while a cotton-wheat sequence would out-perform continuous cotton in terms of cotton lint yields under double skip at Emerald, Moree and Narrabri; and (4) wheat yield would decrease across locations. To maintain current production levels, better performing crop sequence needs to be combined with other adaptation options.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
For irrigated cotton, three years in and one year out is projected to give the best lint yield.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- cotton 3 yr in and 1 yr oute0
- Outcome
- cotton lint yielde0
- Direction
- beste0
- Qualifier
- irrigated cottone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for irrigated cotton, cotton 3 yr in and 1 yr out would perform the best in terms of cotton lint yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yields are projected to decrease under changing climate at most locations across crop sequences.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- changing climatee0
- Outcome
- crop yieldse0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- at most of the locationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“crop yields would decrease in a changing climate across crop sequences at most of the locations with wheat yield decreasing more than cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yields are projected to decrease more than cotton yields under changing climate.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- changing climatee0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- decreasing moree0
- Qualifier
- at most of the locationse0
- Comparator
- cottone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“crop yields would decrease in a changing climate across crop sequences at most of the locations with wheat yield decreasing more than cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Rain-fed continuous cotton is projected to perform better at Emerald, Dalby and/or Narrabri with solid and single skip rows.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- continuous cottone0
- Outcome
- perform bettere0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- under solid and single skip row configurationse0
- Setting
- Emerald, Dalby and/or Narrabrie0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for rain-fed cotton, continuous cotton would perform better at Emerald, Dalby and/or Narrabri under solid and single skip row configurations”
Claim · model-written summary
A cotton-wheat sequence is projected to outperform continuous cotton for lint yields with double skip rows at Emerald, Moree and Narrabri.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- cotton-wheat sequencee0
- Outcome
- cotton lint yieldse0
- Direction
- out-performe0
- Qualifier
- under double skipe0
- Comparator
- continuous cottone0
- Setting
- Emerald, Moree and Narrabrie0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a cotton-wheat sequence would out-perform continuous cotton in terms of cotton lint yields under double skip at Emerald, Moree and Narrabri”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yield is projected to decrease across locations.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat yield would decrease across locations.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend combining better crop sequences with other adaptation options to maintain production.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- better performing crop sequence needs to be combined with other adaptation optionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To maintain current production levels, better performing crop sequence needs to be combined with other adaptation options.”
t0“cotton”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →climate site · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 72 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
150 papers more in this group
See all 154 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.