# Optimizing type, date, and dose of compost fertilization of organic cotton under climate change in Mali: A modeling study

Ginette Dembélé, Romain Loison, Amadou Traoré, Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé, Fagaye Sissoko

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Ginette Dembélé, Romain Loison, Amadou Traoré, Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé, Fagaye Sissoko. Optimizing type, date, and dose of compost fertilization of organic cotton under climate change in Mali: A modeling study. PLoS ONE, 2024, 19 (8), pp.e0308736. 10.1371/journal.pone.0308736. hal-05182259

HAL Id: hal-05182259

https://hal.science/hal-05182259v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Optimizing type, date, and dose of compost fertilization of organic cotton under climate change in Mali: A modeling study

Ginette Dembélé¹, Romain Loison²,³,⁴*, Amadou Traoré¹, Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé⁵, Fagaye Sissoko⁶

1 Regional Agricultural Research Center, Institute of Rural Economy (IER), Sotuba, Bamako, Mali, 2 CIRAD, UPR AIDA, Cotonou, Bénin, 3 AIDA, CIRAD, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 4 IRC, Cotonou, Bénin,

5 Rural Polytechnic Institute for Training and Applied Research (IPR/IFRA), Katibougou, Koulikoro, Mali,

6 National Committee for Agricultural Research (CNRA), Bamako, Mali

* romain.loison@cirad.fr

## Abstract

Adapting organic farming to climate change is a major issue. Cotton yields in Mali are declining due to deteriorating climatic conditions, soil fertility, and poor management. This study aimed to improve organic cotton yield in Mali in the future climate with the optimal choice of compost type, date, and dose of application. Experimental data collected in 2021 from the Sotuba research station in Mali was used for calibration and evaluation of the crop model DSSAT CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model using phenology, leaf area index, and seed cotton yield. Climate data from the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios of the GFDL-ESM2M model were used for future weather datasets for 2020-2039, 2040-2059, and 2060-2079. The model was able to simulate anthesis and maturity with excellent results, with nRMSE < 4%, and seed cotton yields moderately well, an nRMSE of 26% during calibration and 20.3% in evaluation. The scenario RCP8.5 from 2060 to 2079 gave the best seed cotton yields. Seed cotton yields with RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 were all better with the mid-May application period of small ruminant silo compost at 7.5 t/ha. In such conditions, more than 75% of the cases would produce more than 2000 kg/ha of seed cotton.

## 1. Introduction

Climate change remains one of our world's greatest challenges with all its implications (insufficient, excessive, or poorly distributed rainfall and rising temperatures) for the environment and the global economy [1]. From the 1970s onwards, we have witnessed a reduction in agricultural production worldwide due to the impact of climate change on rainfall and temperature [2, 3]. Climate forecasts for the African continent show endemic climatic hazards [4]. The RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios show that temperatures will gradually rise in southern Mali [5]. Negative consequences on crop productivity are the corollary of rising temperatures [5].

The origins of organic farming can be traced back to the 1920s and 1930s in Northern Europe [6]. Preserving and improving soil health is at the heart of organic farming [7].

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Dembélé G, Loison R, Traoré A, Dembélé SG, Sissoko F (2024) Optimizing type, date, and dose of compost fertilization of organic cotton under climate change in Mali: A modeling study. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0308736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736

**Editor:** Sudeshna Bhattacharjya, ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil Science, INDIA

**Received:** October 19, 2023

**Accepted:** July 30, 2024

**Published:** August 14, 2024

**Peer Review History:** PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736

**Copyright:** © 2024 Dembélé et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
**Funding:** This research was carried out with the financial support of the project "Appui à la Transition Agroécologique en zone Cotonnier du Mali" (AgrECo): AgrECo CML1430 whose financing agreement has been signed between AFD and the Government of Mali. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Numerous studies have shown that organic farming is more effective at preserving or improving soil quality [8–10]. In developing countries, especially Mali, conventional cotton growers are in crisis due to declining soil fertility, input costs, resistant pests, or low cotton prices [11]. Many farmers are turning to organic farming to restore soil fertility, promote ecological regulation, and reduce production costs [12]. Compost, in particular, has been found helpful in restoring soil quality in Sub-Saharan Africa [13]. Organic manure can reduce soil organic carbon loss [14] and should be encouraged to reduce the impact of climate change [15].

In West and Central Africa, the agricultural industry is dominated by cotton growing in many countries. It remains the primary source of income, with sixteen million people involved in processing and marketing [16]. Agricultural development of cotton is strongly polarized between three paradigms: the agro-industrial, genetically modified, and agroecological models [17]. Conventional production requires synthetic chemical inputs that harm the environment and soil [18–21]. In this context, agroecological and fair trade initiatives using exclusively organic manure have emerged as exciting alternatives [22, 23]. Seed cotton yields vary according to climatic conditions and agronomic practices such as nutrient fertility management [24, 25]. In West Africa, the recommendation for applying organic manure to fields remains unique and independent of the quality of organic manure available on farms [26]. A low amount of compost did not induce short-term increases in seed cotton yields in Benin [27]. Also in Benin, seedcotton yields responded to different types and doses of compost, with obtained yield ranging between those observed under non-fertilized and mineral fertilizer conditions [28]. In Mali's cotton-growing zone, organic fertilizer is generally applied between March and April [29]. This period seems to expose nutrients to various losses, especially nitrogen, which remains the reference element in organic fertilizers. Understanding this practice will help determine the best time to apply organic inputs to maximize seed cotton yields.

For optimal crop yields, understanding the impacts of climate change is essential for good planning and appropriate responses [30–32]. Modeling studies could help to forecast and minimize different production constraints with a global picture considering different aspects of crop production [33]. Modeling is used to understand better these complex links between the pedoclimatic context and the responses of the agroecosystem, but also for decision-support purposes. Small-scale field experiments can be used by modeling to predict larger-scale phenomena, including the impact of likely future climate, so practical experimentation and modeling become complementary [34, 35]. Modeling using DSSAT platform models is adapted to better understand complex systems between pedoclimatic and agroecosystems for scenario analyses that will be used to support decision-making [36, 37]. Data used for model calibration and validation include initial soil conditions, crop-specific cultivation techniques, and seasonal weather conditions; these data are used by cropping system models (CSM) [38]. The CSM has been used for crop management in different environments, studies of the impact of climate change on production [39, 40], and to simulate the effects of climate change on agricultural production in Africa [41].

The impact of compost on yield and soil properties has been extensively studied. However, more research is needed to examine the specific practices used by organic cotton growers and the environmental aspects of those practices [22]. Natural resources are scarce, and mobilizing them in sufficient amounts is difficult for large-scale organic farming [42]. Adequate soil fertility management practices are essential to ensure efficient and sustainable use in the future [43]. However, Mali has no manure management policies or responsible ministries dealing with such questions yet [44]. More literature is needed on the impact of dose, type, and timing of application on cotton yield and development in Sub-Saharan rainfed cotton under current and future climates. Therefore, the objective of this study is to identify optimal use of compost on organic cotton production in Mali under expected climate change conditions to improve
Malian organic cotton farmers' resilience to climate change and provide ministries with evidence for putative compost management policies.

**2. Materials and methods**

**2.1 Study area**

This research was carried out in 2021 at the IER (Institute of Rural Economy) research station in Sotuba (12.6581°N, -7.92316°W, 320 m). Sotuba's climate is Sudano-Sahelian. It is subdivided into a rainy season from June to October and a dry season from November to May. The rainy season peaks around July and August. In 2021, precipitation reached 991 mm on 102 rainy days (Fig 1).

The soil was Sandy loam (0-20cm) and Loam (20-40cm) with low overall fertility (Table 1).

**2.2 Field experiment**

**2.2.1 Experimental design.** The experimental design was a split plot with three factors and four replicates. Each elementary plot was 12.8 m², with four lines of 4 m each, and observations were made on 5.44 m² on the two central lines by removing 2 x 0.3 m of border. The soil was evenly ploughed with a Massey Ferguson disc sprayer. The previous crop was

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Rainfall at the Sotuba research station in 2021. A = April, M = May, J = June, J = July, A = August, S = September, O = October.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.g001
<table><caption>Table 1. Soil properties of the experimental field before compost application.</caption><thead><tr><th>Soil property</th><th>0-20 cm</th><th>20-40 cm</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>pH</td><td>5.57</td><td>6.04</td></tr><tr><td>*SOC (%)</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>N total (%)</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Phosphorus assimilable (ppm)</td><td>25.41</td><td>9.17</td></tr><tr><td>*CEC (meq/100g)</td><td>7.65</td><td>7.31</td></tr><tr><td>Ca exchangeable (meq/100g)</td><td>3.24</td><td>3.13</td></tr><tr><td>Mg exchangeable (meq/100g)</td><td>1.62</td><td>1.57</td></tr><tr><td>K exchangeable (meq/100g)</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>Na exchangeable (meq/100g)</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Sand (%)</td><td>64</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Silt (%)</td><td>28</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Clay (%)</td><td>8</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Textural class</td><td>Sandy loam</td><td>Loam</td></tr><tr><td>Bulk density (g/cm3)</td><td>1.74</td><td>1.55</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Cation exchange capacity (CEC), Soil organic carbon (SOC)

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.t001

*Brachiaria ruziziensis*. The cotton (*Gossypium hirsutum* L) cultivar used was NTA MS334. This cultivar is widely cultivated in the various cotton-growing areas of Mali. It has a 120-day cycle and an average conventional seed cotton yield of about 1,500 kg/ha. The cotton was planted on July 01, 2021, with 80 cm between rows and 30 cm between two plants in the row. Pests were controlled with extracts of *Cassia nigricans*. The cotton was harvested manually on October 30, 2021.

**2.2.2 Factors studied.** Three factors related to compost were studied. In the split-plot design, the main plot factor was the period of compost application with three levels. The application was on March 01, 2021 (application date P1), on April 01, 2021 (application date P2), and on May 15, 2021 (application date P3). The second factor was the type of compost. Four types of compost were used: Silo compost based on small ruminant manure (sheep and goats) mixed with bush straw (compost C1), Silo compost based on manure from large ruminants (cattle) mixed with bush straw (compost C2), farmer compost based on small ruminant manure (compost C3) and farmer's compost based on large ruminant manure (C4). The composts C1 and C2 consistently had higher N, P, and K content than C3 and C4 (Table 2).

The third factor was the compost dose applied, especially to the line. Three doses were applied: 2.5 t/ha (dose D1), the recommended dose of 5 t/ha (dose D2), and 7.5 t/ha (dose D3). The second and third factors were fully randomized within the main plots.

<table><caption>Table 2. Compost properties on the production site before March application in 2021 and 2022.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Compost</th><th colspan="3">Content in 2021 (%)</th><th colspan="3">Content in 2022 (%)</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub></th><th>K<sub>2</sub>O</th><th>N</th><th>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub></th><th>K<sub>2</sub>O</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C1</td><td>1.01</td><td>11.69</td><td>0.36</td><td>1.22</td><td>9.60</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>1.13</td><td>10.05</td><td>0.41</td><td>1.31</td><td>11.15</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>0.82</td><td>2.41</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.92</td><td>4.68</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.68</td><td>3.45</td><td>0.29</td></tr></tbody></table>

The composts were Silo compost based on small ruminant manure (sheep and goats) + bush straw (compost C1), Silo compost based on manure from large ruminants (cattle) + bush straw (compost C2), farmer compost based on small ruminant manure (compost C3), farmer's compost based on large ruminant manure (C4).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.t002
**2.2.3 Data collected.** Data was collected on weather, soil, crop management and crop phenology, leaf area index (LAI), and yield. Weather data were collected from the Sotuba weather station (Auget Basculant rain gauge, Campbell Stokes Casella London heliograph, Lambrecht Meteo GmbH anemometer, Jules Richard Instruments) located near the experimental plots. It measured daily global radiation, maximum and minimum temperatures, wind speed, relative humidity, and rainfall. The soil types encountered were hydro-morphic alluvial soils and ferruginous soils with a sandy loam texture. They were low in organic matter (Nitrogen = 0.06% in the 0-20 cm horizon and 0.05% in the 20-40 cm horizon, organic carbon = 0.62% in the 0-20 cm horizon and 0.42% in the 20-40 cm horizon) with a pH of 5.57 in the 0-20 cm horizon and 6.04 in the 20-40 cm horizon and Bulk density was 1.74 $mg^{-3}$ in the 0-20 cm horizon and 1.54 $mg^{-3}$ in the 20-40 cm horizon.

The crop phenology, LAI, and seed cotton yield were measured. Regarding phenology, the flowering date (anthesis) is the first day on which the cumulative number of white flowers equals or exceeds half the number of plants. The date of boll opening (maturity) is the first day on which the number of open bolls on both lines is equal to or greater than half the number of plants. The LAI was measured with the LICOR LAI-2200C every two weeks from day 30 to 130 after planting to day 130 to determine the maximum LAI. The seed cotton yield was obtained from a manual harvest of each plot on October 30, 2021.

**2.3 Crop model CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton**

**2.3.1 General description.** The DSSAT platform was developed by an international network of scientists working on the "International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Transfer" project [45]. The DSSAT platform is a decision-support tool that integrates soil, climate, and crop management knowledge. It is used by researchers, educators, consultants, producers, and policy-makers for a variety of purposes, including crop management, climate change impact studies, precision agriculture, and sustainable research [45, 46]. The model CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton from DSSAT version 4.8 was used for the study [39, 47, 48]. This model simulates the functioning of the crop in the plot; it considers the soil with four sub-modules (soil water, soil temperature, soil carbon and nitrogen, and soil dynamics) [46], climatic conditions (temperature, average relative humidity, average wind, solar radiation, and daily rainfall), cotton crop "genetic" characteristics and crop management [49]. Phenology, especially time from planting to flowering (ADAP) and to maturity (MDAP), the maximum leaf area index (LAIX), and seed cotton yield (HWAM) are critical outputs of the DSSAT models used by most agri-modelers [50]. The model from DSSAT is sensitive to compost application, and residue retention significantly affected the simulation of cumulative N mineralization, SOC %in Africa [51]. Moreover, the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton has been extensively used for cotton evaluation under current climate and climate change conditions in West and Central Africa [52–54].

**2.3.2 Calibration and evaluation of CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton.** Calibration involves adjusting model parameters to best reproduce site-specific conditions [49]. Evaluation involves assessing the model's predictive capacity with an independent dataset. The model CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton has been extensively calibrated and evaluated for cotton under sub-Saharan African conditions [40, 52, 53]. Nevertheless, a specific calibration and evaluation were performed under an organic cotton production system in Mali for the study.

The CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model was calibrated using 12 cropping conditions under compost application date P1 and evaluated using 24 independent cropping conditions at P2 and P3 compost application dates (Table 3). We calibrated the model using flowering date, boll opening, maximum LAI, and seed cotton yield to obtain reasonable estimates of the model's genetic coefficients for the cultivar used.
<table><caption>Table 3. Data used for the model calibration and evaluation.</caption><thead><tr><th>Use</th><th>Time of application</th><th>Dose</th><th>Type</th><th>Treatment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12">Calibration</td><td rowspan="12">March (P1)</td><td rowspan="4">D1</td><td>C1</td><td>P1 D1 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P1 D1 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P1 D1 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P1 D1 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">D2</td><td>C1</td><td>P1 D2 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P1 D2 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P1 D2 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P1 D2 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">D3</td><td>C1</td><td>P1 D3 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P1 D3 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P1 D3 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P1 D3 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">Evaluation</td><td rowspan="12">April (P2)</td><td rowspan="4">D1</td><td>C1</td><td>P2 D1 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P2 D1 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P2 D1 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P2 D1 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">D2</td><td>C1</td><td>P2 D2 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P2 D2 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P2 D2 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P2 D2 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">D3</td><td>C1</td><td>P2 D3 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P2 D3 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P2 D3 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P2 D3 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Mid-May (P3)</td><td rowspan="4">D1</td><td>C1</td><td>P3 D1 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P3 D1 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P3 D1 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P3 D1 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">D2</td><td>C1</td><td>P3 D2 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P3 D2 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P3 D2 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P3 D2 C4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">D3</td><td>C1</td><td>P3 D3 C1</td></tr><tr><td>C2</td><td>P3 D3 C2</td></tr><tr><td>C3</td><td>P3 D3 C3</td></tr><tr><td>C4</td><td>P3 D3 C4</td></tr></tbody></table>

The composts were Silo compost based on small ruminant manure (sheep and goats) + bush straw (compost C1), Silo compost based on manure from large ruminants (cattle) + bush straw (compost C2), farmer compost based on small ruminant manure (compost C3), farmer's compost based on large ruminant manure (C4); The doses were 2.5 t/ha (dose D1), the recommended dose of 5 t/ha (dose D2) and 7.5 t/ha (dose D3).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.t003

### 2.3.3 The goodness of fit statistics.
The model was tested against measured data on flowing date, the beginning of boll opening (maturity) date, LAI, and cotton seed cotton yield. The statistics used to evaluate the performance of the DSSAT model were the root mean square error (RMSE) [55] and the normalized RMSE (nRMSE, in %). Model simulations have been considered excellent, good, fair, and poor based on the respective normalized RMSE (nRMSE,
Eq 1) of <10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, and >30% [56, 57].

$$nRMSE(\%) = \frac{RMSE}{\text{observed mean}} \times 100 \qquad (\text{Eq1})$$

## 2.4 Virtual experiment

**2.4.1 Climate scenarios used.** Climate change projections from the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) GFDL-ESM2M model [58] were used to generate three weather series of 20 years each: 2020-2039, 2040-2059 and 2060-2079. Two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) were considered. RCP4.5 is an optimistic scenario in which emissions reach stability before the end of the 21st century at a low level [59], and RCP8.5 is a pessimistic scenario in which emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century [60]. The dynamic of atmospheric concentration of CO₂ was accounted for in each scenario (Fig 2). At the end of the century, the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ will increase under RCP8.5 with a mean temperature of 3 to 6°C and stabilize under RCP4.5 with a mean temperature of 2 to 5°C [4].

**2.4.2 Model simulations with future climate.** Three future periods were used: 2020-2039, 2040-2059 and 2060-2079. Contrasted compost dates of application were used for the simulation experiment (P1 and P3), doses (D1 and D3), and type of compost (C1 vs C3) to simulate the future climate data under the two emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The variables evaluated were the date to flowering (days after planting, ADAP), the LAIX, and HWAM at the optimum planting date, i.e., the planting date that gave the best seed cotton yield simulated over a range of planting dates of 160, 170, 180, 190, 200 and 210 days of the year (from June 09 to July 27).

# 3. Results

## 3.1 Calibration and evaluation results

The starting coefficients for cotton cultivar NTA MS334 (ecotype CO0006) were 48.0, 40, 170, 300, and 1.10 for EM-FL, SD-PM, SLAVR, SIZLF, and LFMAX, respectively (please refer to Table 4 for the description of the coefficients). These original coefficients were those for the cultivar Deltapine 1219. They had led to high levels of RMSE on phenology, LAI, and seed cotton yield (not shown). After the calibration, the calibrated parameters values were 47.7, 20, 249.5, 245, and 0.66, respectively, for EM-FL, SD-PM, SLAVR, SIZLF, and LFMAX.

The nRMSE of ADAP was excellent (1.1%) on a basis with a mean of 62 days after planting (DAP) and an RMSE of 0.7 with the calibration data (Table 5), and it was 3.2% with a mean of 62 and 63.8 DAP respectively and an RMSE of 2.1 with the evaluation data. Similarly, the calibration was excellent for MDAP with an nRMSE of 3.8%, and evaluation was excellent with an nRMSE of 0.4%. Calibration was good for LAIX, with an nRMSE of 14.7%. However, the model underestimated LAI most of the time, and hence the evaluation could have been better, with an nRMSE of 34.7%. The calibration and evaluation of seed cotton yield were fair, with nRMSE of 26.0% and 20.3%, respectively. The calibrated average values for HWAM were 1047 kg/ha (measured) and 992 kg/ha (simulated). At the same time, the evaluated values were 890 kg/ha (measured) and 820 kg/ha (simulated).

## 3.2 Future weather data

Under the scenario RCP4.5, the climate forecast for 2040-2059 was generally rainy with an average rainfall of 1,042.8 mm, while 2020-2039 was characterized by low rainfall of 956.5 mm. Temperatures were the highest during 2060-2079 (20.72°C TMIN and 41.38°C TMAX), and
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Atmospheric CO₂ from 2020 to 2080 under scenarios RCP4.5 and 8.5 (adapted from [1]).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.g002

solar radiation was higher (20.59 MJ m⁻² on average) compared to 2020-2039. The solar radia-
tion for 2040-2059 was lower, with an average of 20.27 MJ m⁻² and a TMAX of 40.74°C and
TMIN of 20.57°C. The highest minimum and maximum temperatures were in May, respec-
tively, with 23.5°C and 45.1°C (2020-2039), 24.2°C and 45°C (2040-2059), and 24.1°C and
46.0°C (2060-2079) (Table 6).

Under the scenario RCP8.5, the average climate forecast for the 2020-2039 period had
heavy rainfall of 1015.4 mm, followed by 2040-2059 (993.2 mm) and 2060-2079 (929 mm).
Temperature was highest in the 2060-2079 (22.6°C TMIN and 40.5°C TMAX). Whereas, on
<table><caption>Table 4. Calibrated genetic “cultivar” coefficients of the cotton cultivars as default and for cultivar NTA MS334.</caption><thead><tr><td>Code</td><td>Parameter full description</td><td>Default value</td><td>Calibrated value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>EM-FL</td><td>The time between cotton emergence and appearance of these flowers [photothermal day]</td><td>48.0</td><td>47.7</td></tr><tr><td>SD-PM</td><td>Time from cotton first seed (R5) and physiological maturity (R7) [photothermal day]</td><td>40</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>SLAVR</td><td>Specific leaf area of cultivar under standard growth conditions [cm²/g]</td><td>170.0</td><td>249.5</td></tr><tr><td>SIZLF</td><td>Maximum size of a leaf [cm²]</td><td>300</td><td>245</td></tr><tr><td>LFMAX</td><td>Maximum leaf photosynthesis rate at 30°C, 350 vpm CO2 and high light levels [mg CO2/m²/s]</td><td>1.10</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td>Ecotype</td><td>Code for the ecotype to which this cultivar belongs</td><td>CO0006</td><td>CO0006</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.t004

average, solar radiation was higher in the 2060-2079 period (21.0 MJ m⁻²) compared to the 2020-2039 (20.5 MJ m⁻²) and 2040-2059 (20.4 MJ m⁻²) periods (Table 7).

## 3.3 Future climate under organic cotton cultivation

Irrespective of the RCP scenario or the period, the treatments did not influence the distribution of ADAP (Fig 3). Generally, the ADAP was between 57 and 66 DAP. Flowering should happen earlier under RCP8.5 compared to RCP4.5.

Under the RCP4.5 scenario over 2020-2039, 50% of ADAP (interquartile Q1-Q3) were between 62 and 63 DAP. During 2040-2079, flowering occurred earlier; more than 75% of ADAP occurred before 63 DAP. The period 2060-2079 had more variability than the first two periods, characterized by ADAP up to 66 DAP, with 50% of plants flowering between 63 and 66 DAP.

Under RCP8.5, the distribution of ADAP varied between periods—the furthest the period, the faster the flowering. Between 2020 and 2039, 75% of flowering took place between 60 and 63 DAP. In contrast, between 2040 and 2059, ADAP had less variability, all falling within three days between 59 and 62 DAP. As for the 2060-2079 period, at least 75% of the beginning of flowering happened up to 60 DAP.

The distribution of LAIX differed between treatments, RCP scenarios, and periods (Fig 4). There is a clear difference between treatments over all the simulation periods. The distribution showed more variability of LAIX under RCP4.5 compared to under RCP8.5 for 2040 to 2079. The mid-May treatment period using 7.5 t/ha of small ruminant silo compost (P3C1D3) had the highest median LAIX across situations ranging from approximately 4.55 to 6.45. Conversely, the P1C3D3 produced the smallest LAIX, ranging from approximately 2.40 to 3.85.

The distribution of seed cotton yields differed between treatments, RCP scenarios, and periods (Fig 5). The range of median seedcotton yield is 610 to 2403 kg/ha. The variability of

<table><caption>Table 5. CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton calibration and evaluation results for NTA MS334 at Station de Recherche Agronomique de Sotuba, Mali.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th rowspan="2">Unit</th><th colspan="4">Calibration</th><th colspan="4">Evaluation</th></tr><tr><th>Obs</th><th>Sim</th><th>RMSE</th><th>nRMSE (%)</th><th>Obs</th><th>Sim</th><th>RMSE</th><th>nRMSE (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ADAP</td><td>DAP</td><td>62.0</td><td>62.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.1</td><td>63.8</td><td>62.0</td><td>2.1</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>MDAP</td><td>DAP</td><td>103.0</td><td>107.0</td><td>4.0</td><td>3.8</td><td>107.0</td><td>107.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>LAIX</td><td>-</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>0.4</td><td>14.7</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.9</td><td>34.7</td></tr><tr><td>HWAM</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>1 047</td><td>992</td><td>272</td><td>26.0</td><td>890</td><td>820</td><td>181</td><td>20.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

ADAP is the duration between planting and the beginning of flowering, MDAP is the duration between planting and the start of boll opening, LAIX is the maximum leaf area index, and HWAM is the seed cotton yield. Obs is the observed mean, and Sim is the simulated mean. DAP: Days after planting. RMSE is the relative mean square error, and nRMSE is the normalized RMSE (see M&M section for extensive description).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.t005
<table><caption>Table 6. Average monthly climate of projected meteorological data (2020-2079) from RCP4.5 of GFDL-ESM2M model (CMIP5) at the Agronomic Research Station of Sotuba, Mali.</caption><thead><tr><th>Month</th><th>SRAD (2020-2039)</th><th>SRAD (2040-2059)</th><th>SRAD (2060-2079)</th><th>TMIN (2020-2039)</th><th>TMIN (2040-2059)</th><th>TMIN (2060-2079)</th><th>TMAX (2020-2039)</th><th>TMAX (2040-2059)</th><th>TMAX (2060-2079)</th><th>Rainfall (2020-2039)</th><th>Rainfall (2040-2059)</th><th>Rainfall (2060-2079)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Jan.</td><td>18.4</td><td>18.8</td><td>18.8</td><td>15.1</td><td>15.4</td><td>15.5</td><td>36.9</td><td>37.7</td><td>37.9</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.9</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Febr.</td><td>21.2</td><td>21.4</td><td>21.3</td><td>17.7</td><td>18.7</td><td>18.6</td><td>40.4</td><td>40.9</td><td>42.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Mar</td><td>22.8</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.6</td><td>21.0</td><td>21.2</td><td>22</td><td>42.8</td><td>43.4</td><td>43.2</td><td>2.1</td><td>3.0</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>April</td><td>22.3</td><td>23.1</td><td>22.6</td><td>23.1</td><td>23.8</td><td>24.1</td><td>44.2</td><td>45.5</td><td>45.0</td><td>31.0</td><td>26.5</td><td>37.2</td></tr><tr><td>May</td><td>21.7</td><td>21.8</td><td>21.4</td><td>23.5</td><td>24.2</td><td>24.1</td><td>45.1</td><td>45.8</td><td>46.0</td><td>65.6</td><td>65.3</td><td>69.7</td></tr><tr><td>June</td><td>21.2</td><td>19.7</td><td>19.8</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.8</td><td>23.2</td><td>42.3</td><td>42.6</td><td>42.4</td><td>119.1</td><td>153.5</td><td>171.2</td></tr><tr><td>July</td><td>21.1</td><td>20.1</td><td>20.6</td><td>21.5</td><td>21.7</td><td>21.9</td><td>40.5</td><td>39.5</td><td>40.0</td><td>206.1</td><td>252.1</td><td>245.4</td></tr><tr><td>Aug.</td><td>19.6</td><td>18.8</td><td>19.9</td><td>20.9</td><td>21.4</td><td>21.3</td><td>38.4</td><td>37.4</td><td>39.3</td><td>294.2</td><td>275.3</td><td>261.4</td></tr><tr><td>Sept.</td><td>19.5</td><td>18.4</td><td>20.9</td><td>21.1</td><td>21.5</td><td>21.5</td><td>38.3</td><td>38.1</td><td>41.0</td><td>174.5</td><td>201.2</td><td>163.9</td></tr><tr><td>Oct.</td><td>20.5</td><td>20.1</td><td>20.8</td><td>20.2</td><td>20.8</td><td>21.0</td><td>40.6</td><td>40.5</td><td>41.8</td><td>54.9</td><td>59.9</td><td>68.3</td></tr><tr><td>Nov.</td><td>20.3</td><td>20.6</td><td>20.2</td><td>17.3</td><td>17.6</td><td>18.0</td><td>39.9</td><td>40.0</td><td>41.2</td><td>7.9</td><td>5.1</td><td>12.3</td></tr><tr><td>Dec</td><td>18.6</td><td>18.0</td><td>18.2</td><td>17.0</td><td>17.7</td><td>17.4</td><td>36.3</td><td>37.5</td><td>36.8</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td><strong>20.6</strong></td><td><strong>20.3</strong></td><td><strong>20.6</strong></td><td><strong>20.1</strong></td><td><strong>20.6</strong></td><td><strong>20.7</strong></td><td><strong>40.5</strong></td><td><strong>40.7</strong></td><td><strong>41.4</strong></td><td><strong>956.5</strong></td><td><strong>1 042.8</strong></td><td><strong>1 033</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

SRAD: global solar radiation, TMIN: minimum temperature, TMAX: maximum temperature, Jan: January, Feb: February, Mar: March, Aug: August, Sept: September, Oct: October, Nov: November, Dec: December, Total: the average of monthly averages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.t006

seedcotton yields is reduced with time, especially under RCP8.5. The furthest the period, the lower the median of seed cotton yield under RCP4.5, whereas under RCP4.5, it was the contrary. Under both RCPs, the most profitable treatment is the mid-May application of small ruminant silo compost at 7.5 t/ha (P3C1D3), with median seed cotton yields ranging from 1608 to 2403 kg/ha.

<table><caption>Table 7. Average monthly climate of projected meteorological data (2020-2079) from RCP8.5 of GFDL-ESM2M model (CMIP5) at the Agronomic Research Station of Sotuba, Mali.</caption><thead><tr><th>Month</th><th>SRAD (2020-2039)</th><th>SRAD (2040-2059)</th><th>SRAD (2060-2079)</th><th>TMIN (2020-2039)</th><th>TMIN (2040-2059)</th><th>TMIN (2060-2079)</th><th>TMAX (2020-2039)</th><th>TMAX (2040-2059)</th><th>TMAX (2060-2079)</th><th>Rainfall (2020-2039)</th><th>Rainfall (2040-2059)</th><th>Rainfall (2060-2079)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Jan.</td><td>18.8</td><td>18.3</td><td>18.9</td><td>15.5</td><td>15.9</td><td>18.4</td><td>37.5</td><td>38.4</td><td>38.7</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.9</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Febr.</td><td>21.3</td><td>21.2</td><td>21.2</td><td>18.1</td><td>18.9</td><td>21</td><td>40.6</td><td>41.2</td><td>42</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Mar</td><td>22.8</td><td>22.1</td><td>22.9</td><td>21.1</td><td>22.7</td><td>23.7</td><td>41.8</td><td>42.6</td><td>43.2</td><td>1.1</td><td>3.9</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>April</td><td>23.1</td><td>22.6</td><td>22.8</td><td>22.8</td><td>24.6</td><td>26</td><td>43.2</td><td>43.7</td><td>44.6</td><td>18.4</td><td>23.9</td><td>18.3</td></tr><tr><td>May</td><td>21.2</td><td>20.6</td><td>21.1</td><td>23.7</td><td>24.7</td><td>26.1</td><td>41.9</td><td>41.9</td><td>43.4</td><td>73.9</td><td>79.5</td><td>71.6</td></tr><tr><td>June</td><td>21.2</td><td>20.6</td><td>20.9</td><td>22.8</td><td>23.4</td><td>25</td><td>40</td><td>40.1</td><td>41.4</td><td>124.7</td><td>130.8</td><td>126.1</td></tr><tr><td>July</td><td>20.9</td><td>20.9</td><td>24.3</td><td>21.4</td><td>22.1</td><td>23.8</td><td>37.2</td><td>37.3</td><td>39.3</td><td>223.4</td><td>205.2</td><td>184.1</td></tr><tr><td>Aug.</td><td>19.6</td><td>20.1</td><td>22.8</td><td>21.3</td><td>21.8</td><td>22.5</td><td>36.8</td><td>36.6</td><td>39.2</td><td>288.2</td><td>280.3</td><td>248.6</td></tr><tr><td>Sept.</td><td>19.1</td><td>20</td><td>20.5</td><td>21.4</td><td>22</td><td>22.5</td><td>35.5</td><td>36.3</td><td>37.9</td><td>200.3</td><td>182.9</td><td>174</td></tr><tr><td>Oct.</td><td>19.2</td><td>19.6</td><td>18.7</td><td>20.5</td><td>21</td><td>22.8</td><td>36.6</td><td>37.5</td><td>38.9</td><td>74.9</td><td>77.1</td><td>88.8</td></tr><tr><td>Nov.</td><td>ember 20</td><td>19.8</td><td>19.5</td><td>17.5</td><td>18.5</td><td>19.7</td><td>35.9</td><td>37.2</td><td>39.4</td><td>8.8</td><td>8.6</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>Dec</td><td>18.3</td><td>18.4</td><td>18.7</td><td>17.1</td><td>18.2</td><td>19.2</td><td>36.6</td><td>37.2</td><td>38.2</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td><strong>20.5</strong></td><td><strong>20.4</strong></td><td><strong>21.0</strong></td><td><strong>20.2</strong></td><td><strong>21.15</strong></td><td><strong>22.6</strong></td><td><strong>38.6</strong></td><td><strong>39.2</strong></td><td><strong>40.5</strong></td><td><strong>1015.4</strong></td><td><strong>993.2</strong></td><td><strong>929</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

SRAD: global solar radiation, TMIN: minimum temperature, TMAX: maximum temperature, Jan: January, Feb: February, Mar: March, Aug: August, Sept: September, Oct: October, Nov: November, Dec: December, Total: the average of monthly averages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.t007
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 3.** Impact of future climate on flowering according to RCP, period, and practices linked to compost fertilization. Compost applied in March (P1) and in mid-May (P3), Silo compost based on small ruminant manure (sheep and goats) + bush straw (C1), Farmer compost based on small ruminant manure (C3), dose of compost applied of 2.5 t/ha (D1) and 7.5 t/ha (D3). For each boxplot, the points are the individual values (n = 20).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.g003

4. Discussion

Our study used the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model from the platform DSSAT to calibrate
and evaluate organic farming with different compost management practices in Mali. Calibra-
tion and evaluation of the model were good, with RMSE of 0.7 and 2.1 days for flowering,
RMSE of 3.95 and 0.46 days for simulated boll opening, and yield with RMSE of 272 kg/ha
(calibration) and 181 kg/ha (evaluation). Our results are consistent with those of [52], where
calibration and evaluation of growth and yield were sufficient with low levels of RMSE.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 4.** The impact of the future climate on the maximum leaf area index according to RCP, period, and practices linked to compost fertilization.
Compost applied in March (P1) and in mid-May (P3), Silo compost based on small ruminant manure (sheep and goats) + bush straw (C1), Farmer compost based on small ruminant manure (C3), dose of compost applied of 2.5 t/ha (D1) and 7.5 t/ha (D3). For each boxplot, the points are the individual values (n = 20).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.g004

Moreover, the levels of RMSE for the seed cotton yield were similar to those of [49], who calibrated the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton for three cultivars with RMSE levels from 153 to 448 kg/ha. The data used to simulate the model in our study were considered good according to previous research [61]. According to [62], CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton reveals a simulation of flowering days that is close to observed values of the RMSE, which was less than three days. Similarly [63], found that DSSAT could simulate the capsule ripening period with an RMSE of less than three days.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 5.** Impact of future climate on cotton yield according to RCP, period, and practices linked to compost fertilization. Compost applied in March (P1) and in mid-May (P3), Silo compost based on small ruminant manure (sheep and goats) + bush straw (C1), Farmer compost based on small ruminant manure (C3), dose of compost applied of 2.5 t/ha (D1) and 7.5 t/ha (D3). For each boxplot, the points are the individual values (n = 20).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308736.g005

Our study's pessimistic scenario (RCP8.5) produced better seed cotton yield and performance than the moderate emission scenario (RCP4.5). This corroborates the findings of [64], where an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ had compensated for the expected reductions in seed cotton yield due to high temperature and reduced precipitation [49]. According to [65], cotton photosynthetic activity is proportional to CO₂ levels, implying that cotton development is a function of the amount of CO₂ in the air. The atmospheric concentration of CO₂ up to 650 ppm results in optimum growth for cotton plants [66].
Our study showed increased yields of cotton from small ruminant silo compost compared with farmers' compost. The quality of the fertilizer produced by the farmers needs to be improved to compensate for losses due to mineralization, which falls short of the quality of the products obtained at the research station. According to [26], farmers produce only 6% of the recommended average quality manure or compost today. The quantity of compost is insufficient and may not be increased sufficiently; therefore, its quality has to be improved [26]. The nutrient content of compost depends on the organic raw materials used, compost processing conditions, and composting time [67, 68]. According to [69], for organic manure, not only the litter's quality but also the decomposition duration should be taken into account to have a better yield. A comprehensive simulation of the impact of future climate on organic cotton yields in our study showed changes in the optimistic RCP4.5 scenario with the mid-May application period of small ruminant silo compost at 7.5 t/ha. However, it indicated much lower seed cotton yields with the March and April application periods. This was probably due to decomposition of the compost before incorporation. Organic farming techniques increase soil organic matter and productivity, especially under drought conditions [70]. We found that the latest application rate performed best, similar to [71] in a perennial forage. Near-infrared spectroscopy has successfully estimated organic fertilizer quality [72] and could further enhance the efficiency of compost use in organic farming in Mali.

**5. Conclusion**

The CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model was reasonably calibrated using observations such as phenology, leaf area index, and yield under organic cotton production in Mali. The application of silo compost at 7.5 t/ha in mid-May, near the beginning of the rainy season in Mali, should be beneficial for organic seed cotton yield, whether under RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 with the future climate scenario of 2020-2079. The crop model could be used to tailor adapted solutions under climate change in Mali for other crops or other management.

**Supporting information**

S1 Dataset.
(ZIP)

**Acknowledgments**

The authors would like to thank the Government of Mali, the cotton program team (Tinamoud CISSE, Mamadou TRAORE, Madelene DEMBELE, Karamoko KAMISSOKO, Yacouba TRAORE), the members of AgrECo and all those who contributed to improving this manuscript.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Ginette Dembélé, Romain Loison, Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé, Fagaye Sissoko.

**Data curation:** Ginette Dembélé.

**Funding acquisition:** Fagaye Sissoko.

**Investigation:** Ginette Dembélé, Romain Loison, Amadou Traoré, Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé, Fagaye Sissoko.
**Methodology:** Ginette Dembélé, Romain Loison, Amadou Traore, Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé, Fagaye Sissoko.

**Project administration:** Fagaye Sissoko.

**Supervision:** Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé, Fagaye Sissoko.

**Visualization:** Romain Loison.

**Writing – original draft:** Ginette Dembélé, Romain Loison.

**Writing – review & editing:** Ginette Dembélé, Romain Loison, Amadou Traoré, Fagaye Sissoko.

## References

1. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tigor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis, in contribution of Working Group I (WGI) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; 2013. p. 1535 p.

2. Gadédjisso-Tossou A. Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions of and Adaptations to Climate Change and Variability: The Case of the Maritime, Plateau and Savannah Regions of Togo. Agricultural Sciences. 2015; 06: 1441. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2015.612140

3. Sultan B, Roudier P, Quirion P, Alhassane A, Muller B, Dingkuhn M, et al. Assessing climate change impacts on sorghum and millet yields in the Sudanian and Sahelian savannas of West Africa. Environ Res Lett. 2013; 8: 014040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014040

4. GIEC. Climate Change 2014 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects - Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Field C.B., Barros V.R., Dokken D.J., Mach K.J., Mastrandrea M.D., Bilir T.E., Chatterjee M., Ebi K. L., Estrada Y.O., Genova R.C., Girma B., Kissel E.S., Levy A.N., MacCracken S., Mastrandrea P.R., White L.L. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp. 2014.

5. Traore B, Descheemaeker K, van Wijk MT, Corbeels M, Supit I, Giller KE. Modelling cereal crops to assess future climate risk for family food self-sufficiency in southern Mali. Field Crops Research. 2017; 201: 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.11.002

6. Gomiero T. Alternative Land Management Strategies and Their Impact on Soil Conservation. Agriculture. 2013; 3: 464–483. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture3030464

7. Lal R. Enhancing Eco-efficiency in Agro-ecosystems through Soil Carbon Sequestration. Crop Science. 2010; 50: S-120–S-131. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2010.01.0012

8. Barbieri P, Pellerin S, Seufert V, Smith L, Ramankutty N, Nesme T. Global option space for organic agriculture is delimited by nitrogen availability. Nat Food. 2021; 2: 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00276-y PMID: 37117718

9. Seufert V, Ramankutty N. Many shades of gray—The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci Adv. 2017; 3: e1602638. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602638 PMID: 28345054

10. Goldan E, Nedeff V, Barsan N, Culea M, Panainte-Lehadus M, Mosnegutu E, et al. Assessment of Manure Compost Used as Soil Amendment—A Review. Processes. 2023; 11: 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041167

11. Soumaré M, Havard M, Bachelier B. Le coton en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre : de la révolution agro-cole à la transition agro-écologique. Cahiers Agricultures. 2020; 29: 37. https://doi.org/10.1051/CAGRI/2020037

12. Adjiba C, Hountondji P, Tovignan D, Kirabe G, Yabi J. Analyse comparative des performances économiques de la production du maïs dans les exploitations conventionnel et biologique au nord et centre du Bénin. 2019.

13. Bedada W, Karltun E, Lemenih M, Tolera M. Long-term addition of compost and NP fertilizer increases crop yield and improves soil quality in experiments on smallholder farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2014; 195: 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.017

14. Cardinael R, Guibert H, Kouassi Brédoumy ST, Gigou J, N'Goran KE, Corbeels M. Sustaining maize yields and soil carbon following land clearing in the forest–savannah transition zone of West Africa: Results from a 20-year experiment. Field Crops Research. 2022;275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108335
15. Sankaranarayanan K, Praharaj CS, Nalayini P, Bandyopadhyay KK, Gopalakrishnan N. Climate change and its impact on cotton (Gossypium sp.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2010; 80: 561–575.

16. Bachelier B, Gourlot J-P. Le Monde du coton. Fondation de l'entreprise Hermès. 2019.

17. Kavitha V, Chandran K, Kavitha B. Economic analysis of organic and BT farming of cotton in Erode district of Tamil Nadu. 2013; 2: 313–316.

18. Agbohessi PT, Toko II, Atchou V, Tonato R, Mandiki SNM, Kestemont P. Pesticides used in cotton production affect reproductive development, endocrine regulation, liver status and offspring fitness in African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology. 2015; 167: 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2014.10.002 PMID: 25445569

19. Settle W, Soumaré M, Sarr M, Garba MH, Poisot AS. Reducing pesticide risks to farming communities: Cotton farmer field schools in Mali. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2014; 369: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0277 PMID: 24535387

20. Shah P, Bansal A, Singh RK. Life Cycle Assessment of Organic, BCI and Conventional Cotton: A Comparative Study of Cotton Cultivation Practices in India. Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies. 2018; 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66981-6_8

21. Toe AM, Ouedraogo M, Ouedraogo R, Ilboudo S, Guissou PI. Pilot study on agricultural pesticide poisoning in Burkina Faso. Interdisciplinary Toxicology. 2013; 6: 185–191. https://doi.org/10.2478/intox-2013-0027 PMID: 24678256

22. Delate K, Heller B, Shade J. Organic cotton production may alleviate the environmental impacts of intensive conventional cotton production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2021; 36: 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170520000356

23. Dossa FK, Miassi YES. Facteurs Socio-Economiques Influençant L'adoption de Coton Biologique au Nord-Est du Bénin: Cas de la Commune de Kandi [Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Organic Cotton Adoption in North-East of Benin: Case Study of Kandi District]. International Journal of Progressive Sciences and Technologies (IJPSAT). 2018; 6: 577–584.

24. Dong H, Kong X, Li W, Tang W, Zhang D. Effects of plant density and nitrogen and potassium fertilization on cotton yield and uptake of major nutrients in two fields with varying fertility. Field Crops Research. 2010; 119: 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.06.019

25. Tuttolomondo T, Virga G, Rossini F, Anastasi U, Licata M, Gresta F, et al. Effects of Environment and Sowing Time on Growth and Yield of Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Cultivars in Sicily (Italy). Plants. 2020; 9: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9091209 PMID: 32942767

26. Blanchard M, Coulibaly K, Bognini S, Dugué P, Vall E. Diversité de la qualité des engrais organiques produits par les paysans d'Afrique de l'Ouest: quelles conséquences sur les recommandations de fumure? Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement. 2014 [cited 14 Oct 2023]. Available: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/574774/

27. Yemadje PL, Takpa O, Amonmide I, Balarabe O, Sekloka E, Guibert H, et al. Limited yield penalties in an early transition to conservation agriculture in cotton-based cropping systems of Benin. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2022;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1041399

28. Tovihoudji GP, Diogo RVC, Abiola WA, Akoha FBRM, Godau T. Profitability and agronomic potential of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under biochar-compost-based amendments in three agroecological zones of northern Benin. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2022;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1036133

29. Blanchard M. Gestion de la fertilité des sols et rôle du troupeau dans les systèmes coton-céréales-élevage au mali-sud. Savoirs techniques locaux et pratiques d'intégration agriculture élevage. Thesis, Université Paris-Est, Creteil Val De Marne. 301 p. 2010.

30. Blanc E. The Impact of Climate Change on Crop Yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Climate Change. 2012; 2012: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4236/AJCC.2012.11001

31. Falco SD, Veronesi M, Yesuf M. Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security? A Micro-Perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2011; 93: 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1093/AJAE/AAR006

32. Lobell DB, Burke MB. On the use of statistical models to predict crop yield responses to climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2010; 150: 1443–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.AGRFORMET. 2010.07.008

33. Mollaee M, Mobli A, Mutti NK, Manalil S, Chauhan BS. Challenges and Opportunities in Cotton Production. Cotton Production. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019. pp. 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781119385523.ch18

34. Rötter RP, Carter TR, Olesen JE, Porter JR. Crop-climate models need an overhaul. Nature Clim Change. 2011; 1: 175–177. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1152
35. Traoré A, Falconnier GN, Ba A, Sissoko F, Sultan B, Affholder F. Modeling sorghum-cowpea intercropping for a site in the savannah zone of Mali: Strengths and weaknesses of the Stics model. Field Crops Research. 2022; 285: 108581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108581

36. Eyshi Rezaei E, Gaiser T, Siebert S, Sultan B, Ewert F. Combined impacts of climate and nutrient fertilization on yields of pearl millet in Niger. European Journal of Agronomy. 2014; 55: 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2014.02.001

37. Sultan B, Guan K, Kouressy M, Biasutti M, Piani C, Hammer GL, et al. Robust features of future climate change impacts on sorghum yields in West Africa. Environmental Research Letters. 2014; 9: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104006

38. Jeuffroy M-H, Casadebaig P, Debaeke P, Loyce C, Meynard J-M. Agronomic model uses to predict cultivar performance in various environments and cropping systems. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2014; 34: 121-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0170-9

39. Arshad Awan Z, Khaliq T, Masood Akhtar M, Imran A, Irfan M, Jarrar Ahmed M, et al. Building Climate-Resilient Cotton Production System for Changing Climate Scenarios Using the DSSAT Model. Sustainability. 2021; 13: 10495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910495

40. Gérardeaux E, Sultan B, Palaï O, Guiziou C, Oettli P, Naudin K. Positive effect of climate change on cotton in 2050 by CO2 enrichment and conservation agriculture in Cameroon. Agron Sustain Dev. 2013; 33: 485-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0119-4

41. Thornton PK, Jones PG, Ericksen PJ, Challinor AJ. Agriculture and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa in a 4°C+ world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2011; 369: 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0246 PMID: 21115516

42. Sodjinou E, Glin LC, Nicolay G, Tovignan S, Hini J. Socioeconomic determinants of organic cotton adoption in Benin, West Africa. Agric Econ. 2015; 3: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-015-0030-9

43. Amouzou KA, Naab JB, Lamers JPA, Borgemeister C, Becker M, Vlek PLG. CROPGRO-Cotton model for determining climate change impacts on yield, water- and N- use efficiencies of cotton in the Dry Savanna of West Africa. Agricultural Systems. 2018; 165: 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.005

44. Ndambi OA, Pelster DE, Owino JO, de Buisonjé F, Vellinga T. Manure Management Practices and Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications on Manure Quality as a Fertilizer. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2019;3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00029

45. De Faria RT, Bowen WT. Evaluation of DSSAT soil-water balance module under cropped and bare soil conditions. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2003; 46: 489-498. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132003000400001

46. Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter CH, Boote KJ, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, et al. The DSSAT cropping system model. European Journal of Agronomy. 2003; 18: 235-265.

47. Hoogenboom G, Porter C.H. Shelia V, Boote KJ, Singh U, White JW, et al. Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) Version 4.8 (DSSAT.net). DSSAT Foundation, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 2021.

48. Pierre JF, Singh U, Ruiz-Sánchez E, Pavan W. Development of a Cereal-Legume Intercrop Model for DSSAT Version 4.8. Agriculture. 2023; 13: 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040845

49. Arshad MN, Ahmad A, Wajid SA, Cheema MJM, Schwartz MW. Adapting DSSAT Model for Simulation of Cotton Yield for Nitrogen Levels and Planting Dates. Agronomy Journal. 2017; 109: 2639-2648. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.04.0233

50. Peart RM, Curry RB. Agricultural systems modeling and simulation. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1998.

51. Attia A, El-Hendawy S, Al-Suhaibani N, Tahir MU, Mubushar M, Vianna M dos S, et al. Sensitivity of the DSSAT model in simulating maize yield and soil carbon dynamics in arid Mediterranean climate: Effect of soil, genotype and crop management. Field Crops Research. 2021; 260: 107981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107981

52. Loison R, Audebert A, Debaeke P, Hoogenboom G, Leroux L, Oumarou P, et al. Designing cotton ideotypes for the future: Reducing risk of crop failure for low input rainfed conditions in Northern Cameroon. European Journal of Agronomy. 2017; 90: 162-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.08.003

53. Gérardeaux E, Loison R, Palaï O, Sultan B. Adaptation strategies to climate change using cotton (Gosypium hirsutum L.) ideotypes in rainfed tropical cropping systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. A modeling approach. Field Crops Research. 2018; 226: 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FCR.2018.07.007

54. Ndour A, Loison R, Gourlot J-P, Ba KS, Dieng A, Clouvel P. Climate change and cotton production in senegal: Alternate dissemination strategies of varieties. Biotechnology, Agronomy and Society and Environment. 2017;21.

55. Wallach D, Goffinet B. Mean Squared Error of Prediction in Models for Studying Ecological and Agro- nomic Systems. Biometrics. 1987; 43: 561-573. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531995
56. Kadiyala MDM, Jones JW, Mylavarapu RS, Li YC, Reddy MD. Identifying irrigation and nitrogen best management practices for aerobic rice–maize cropping system for semi-arid tropics using CERES-rice and maize models. Agricultural Water Management. 2015; 149: 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.019

57. Malik W, Isla R, Dechmi F. DSSAT-CERES-maize modelling to improve irrigation and nitrogen management practices under Mediterranean conditions. Agricultural Water Management. 2019; 213: 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.022

58. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA. An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 2012; 93: 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1

59. Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Smith SJ, Kyle GP, Volke A, Patel P, et al. RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Climatic Change. 2011; 109: 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4

60. Riahi K, Rao S, Krey V, Cho C, Chirkov V, Fischer G, et al. RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change. 2011; 109: 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y

61. Kersebaum KC, Boote KJ, Jorgenson JS, Nendel C, Bindi M, Frühauf C, et al. Analysis and classification of data sets for calibration and validation of agro-ecosystem models. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2015; 72: 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.05.009

62. Li W, Zhou Z, Meng Y, Xu N, Fok M. Modeling boll maturation period, seed growth, protein, and oil content of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in China. Field Crops Research. 2009; 112: 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.02.009

63. Amin A, Nasim W, Mubeen M, Nadeem M, Ali L, Hammad HM, et al. Optimizing the phosphorus use in cotton by using CSM-CROPGRO-cotton model for semi-arid climate of Vehari-Punjab, Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017; 24: 5811–5823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8311-8 PMID: 28054268

64. Aziz S, Fatima A, Riaz A, Ali Z, Naz N, Ullah F, et al. Impact of Climate Change on Cotton Production and Its Mitigation Strategies. The International Journal Of Global Sciences. 2022; 4: 1–10.

65. Ton P. Cotton & Climate change: Impacts and options to mitigate and adapt. 2011.

66. Kranthi KR. Challenges and Opportunities in Cotton Production Research. ICAC, Biosafety regulations, implementation and consumer acceptance. 2009; 16–20.

67. Adugna G. A review on impact of compost on soil properties, water use and crop productivity. Agricultural Science Research Journal. 2018; Vol. 4(3): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.14662/ARJASR2016.010

68. Duong TTT, Verma SL, Penfold C, Marschner P. Nutrient release from composts into the surrounding soil. Geoderma. 2013; 195–196: 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.11.010

69. Dalanda DM, Maimouna B, Bakary D, Touroumgaye G. Arrière-Effet De Différents Apports De Fertilités Sur Les Paramètres De Croissance Et De Rendement De La Tomate (Solanum Lycopersicum L.). Revue Agrobiologia. 2018; 8: 1078–1085.

70. Pimentel D, Burgess M. An Environmental, Energetic and Economic Comparison of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. 2014; 141–166.

71. Muir JP, Butler T, Helton TJ, McFarland ML. Dairy Manure Compost Application Rate and Timing Influence Bermudagrass Yield and Nutrient Concentration. Crop Science. 2010; 50: 2133–2139. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.10.0571

72. Wang C, Huang C, Qian J, Xiao J, Li H, Wen Y, et al. Rapid and Accurate Evaluation of the Quality of Commercial Organic Fertilizers Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy. PLOS ONE. 2014; 9: e88279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088279 PMID: 24586313