Effect of Different Irrigation Water Qualities on Turnip Production and Water Productivity under Furrow Irrigation Method
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 field experiment was conducted at Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam during the year 2015-16, aiming to investigate the response of turnip crop to various salinity levels of irrigation. The experiment was placed applying randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four different treatments i.e. Freshwater (I1), ECw with 2.5, 3 and ECw3.5 dS m-1 (I2, I3 and I4) respectively replicated thrice. The results for experiment placed revealed an average increase in soil ECe 0.09, 0.17, 0.26 and 0.38 dS m-1 under I1, I2, I3 and I4 respectively. An decrease in dry density (g cm-3) of soil profile, decrease in pH 0.19, 0.38, 0.5 and 0.84 in treatments I1, I2, I3 and I4 respectively and an decrease in agronomical data i.e. weight and diameter were also observed with an increase in ECw by the water being irrigated. Crop water productivity with 5.83, 4.35, 2.97 and 1.85 kg m-3 for treatmentsI1, I2, I3 and I4 respectively also decreased with an increase in ECw and Nacl. Average yield of 19.27, 14.37, 9.83 and 6.12 kg was obtained with applied treatments i.e. I1, I2, I3 and I4 respectively, thus a decrease in yield with 25.45%, 31.60% and 37.72% with treatments I2, I3 and I4 was observed when compared as treated by freshwater (I1). Therefore farmers can use irrigation water having ECw 3.5 dS m-1 for the turnip crop at reduction of 37.72% (approximately).
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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