Irrigation Scheduling to Promote Corn Productivity in Central Alabama
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Agriculture is the largest consumer of water in the United States. Results from previous studies have shown that it is possible to substantially reduce irrigation amounts and maintain corn yield. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of two irrigation scheduling methods for corn production in Alabama. Two irrigation scheduling methods evaluated were: a) Checkbook, which is one of the conventional methods used by farmers that is based on the soil water balance estimated using water lost by evapotranspiration and its replacement through rainfall or irrigation, and b) Sensor-based, which was based on soil matric potential values recorded by soil moisture tension sensors installed in the field. The experimental field was divided into two irrigation management zones (zone A and zone B) based on soil properties of each field. During the 2014 season in zone A, significant grain yield differences were observed between the two irrigation methods. The Checkbook plots exhibited greater yield than Sensor-based plots: 10181 kg ha-1 and 9696 kg ha-1, respectively. The greater yield on the Checkbook plots could be associated with higher irrigation rate applied, 148 mm more, compared with the Sensor-based plots. In zone B, there were no significant yield differences between both irrigation methods; however, Sensor-based plots out yielded Checkbook plots, with 9673 kg ha-1 and 9584 kg ha-1, respectively. Even though the irrigation amount applied in Checkbook located in zone B was higher, 102 mm more, there were no significant yield differences. Therefore, it suggests that the Sensor-based method was promissory irrigation scheduling strategy under the conditions of zone B. In 2015, there were no significant grain yield differences between zone A and zone B when the data from the Checkbook plots were analyzed. However, the Sensor-based treatment produced a statistically significant difference of grain yield of 13597 kg ha-1 in zone A and 11659 kg ha-1 in zone B, also both zones received the same amount of irrigation. Overall results of both growing seasons indicated that the use of the Sensor-based irrigation scheduling treatment resulted in similar values of total profit per hectare when compared to Checkbook method. The Sensor-based method seems a promising strategy that could result in water and financial savings, but more research is required.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».