Evaluation of the AquaCrop model for simulating yield response of winter wheat to water on the southern Loess Plateau of China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the FAO-AquaCrop model in winter wheat in the southern Loess Plateau of China. Multi-year field experimental data from 2004 and 2011 were used to calibrate and validate the model for simulating biomass, canopy cover (CC), soil water content, and grain yield under rainfed conditions. The model performance was evaluated using root mean square error (RMSE) and Willmott index of agreement (d) as criteria. The RMSE ranged from 0.16 to 0.38 t/ha for simulating aboveground biomass, 1.87 to 4.15% for CC, 0.50 to 1.44 t/ha for grain yield, and 5.70 to 22.56 mm for soil water content. The d ranged from 0.22 to 0.89, 0.25 to 0.43, 0.36 to 0.62 and 0.95 to 0.98 for aboveground biomass, CC, soil water content and grain yield, respectively. Generally, the model performed better for simulating CC and yield than biomass and soil water content. The results further indicated that AquaCrop is capable of simulating winter wheat yield under rainfed conditions. Further improvement may be needed to capture the variation of different management practices such as fertility and irrigation levels in this region.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it