Evaluation of Raised-Bed and Conventional Irrigation Systems for Yield and Water Productivity of Wheat Crop
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
A study was conducted at Drainage and Reclamation Institute of Pakistan (DRIP), Tandojam in a clay loam soil. The treatments include raised-bed irrigation system (T1) and conventional irrigation system (T2). The experiment was laid down using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The total area under experiment for each treatment and replication was 1004.65 m2 and 334.88 m2 respectively. Groundwater quality of experimental sight was slightly saline. Results of the experiment showed that there was highly significant difference in volume of water applied, yield and water productivity of wheat crop under the raised-bed and conventional irrigation systems. Both water saving (50.73%) and water productivity (54.37%) of wheat crop was higher under raised-bed irrigation system. The raised-bed irrigation system obtained 24.65% higher yield compared to conventional irrigation system. All other parameters were also higher under the raised-bed irrigation system. Thus raised-bed irrigation system is recommended to achieve higher yield and water productivity of wheat crop and to save water particularly in a clay loam soil.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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