MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133696974 · doi:10.1109/eicccc.2006.277194

Estimation of Future Crop Water Requirements for 2020 and 2050, Using CROPWAT

2006· article· en· W2133696974 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Doria, Chandra A. Madramootoo, Bano Mehdi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHadCM3Environmental scienceIrrigationDownscalingClimate changeBaseline (sea)Climate modelPrecipitationCropClimatologyGeneral Circulation ModelMeteorologyAgronomyForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the impacts of potential climate change on daily and total crop water requirements (CWR) of peaches in Southern Ontario using CROPWAT in conjunction with the climate scenarios derived from SDSM. Baseline climate is based on the 30 year-period, 1971-2000 of the mean monthly normals, and two time periods in the future centered on the decades of 2020s (2010-2039) and 2050s (2040-2069). The climate parameters of temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, sunshine duration and wind speed were downscaled using the SDSM (version 3.1) method. To determine the future crop water requirements (CWR), the CROPWAT model (FAO, 1992) was used to simulate the daily and the season total CWR and irrigation requirements for the present and the future decades. Results compared to the base climate show an increase in crop water requirements of 6.0 % (39 mm) per season using the SDSM-CGCM1 model for 2020s and 3.0% (20 mm) per season using both the SDSM-HADCM3 A2 & B2 models for 2020s. About 8 % (56 mm) increase in using the SDSM-CGCM1 and HADMC3 A2 models for 2050s, and 7.0 % (43 mm) per season. However, the irrigation requirements decreased, compared to the current situation, by 6.0 % (18 mm) (assuming 90% irrigation efficiency) using the SDSM-CGCM1 for 2020s and by 27% (81 mm) for both SDSM-HADCM3 A2 & B2 models for 2020s. While in 2050s, a decrease of 2.71% (8 mm), 21% (64 mm) and 6% (59 mm) using the SDSM-CGCM1, SDSM-HADCM3 A2 and SDSM-HADCM3 B2, respectively for 2050s.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207