MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>FAO-56</i> Dual Crop Coefficient Method for Estimating Evaporation from Soil and Application Extensions

2005· article· en· W2141060690 on OpenAlexaff
Richard G. Allen, L. S. Pereira, Martin Smith, Dirk Raes, James L. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDual (grammatical number)EvaporationCropEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceCrop coefficientMathematicsAgronomyGeographyBiologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop coefficient curves provide simple, reproducible means to estimate crop evapotranspiration (ET) from weather-based reference ET values. The dual crop coefficient (Kc) method of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United States (FAO) Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 (FAO-56) is intended to improve daily simulation of crop ET by considering separately the contribution of evaporation from soil. The dual method utilizes “basal” crop coefficients representing ET from crops having a dry soil surface and separately predicts evaporation from bare soil based on a water balance of the soil surface layer. Three extensions to the evaporation calculation procedure are described here that are intended to improve accuracy when applications warrant the extra complexity. The first extension uses parallel water balances representing the portion of the soil surface wetted by irrigation and precipitation together and the portion wetted by precipitation alone. The second extension uses three “stages” for surface drying and provides for application to deep cracking soils. The third extension predicts the extraction of the transpiration component from the soil surface layer. Sensitivity and analyses and illustrations indicate moderate sensitivity of daily calculated ET to application of the extensions. The dual Kc procedure, although relatively simple computationally and structurally, estimates daily ET as measured by lysimeter relatively well for periods of bare soil and partial and full vegetation cover.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations612
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Irrigation and Drainage EngineeringSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207