MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807567822 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n7p55

Optimizing Irrigation Depth Using a Plant Growth Model and Weather Forecast

2018· article· en· W2807567822 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hassan M. Abd El Baki, Haruyuki Fujimaki, Ieyasu Tokumoto, Tadaomi Saito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationArachis hypogaeaAgricultural engineeringEnvironmental scienceCenter pivot irrigationIrrigation schedulingIrrigation managementSurface irrigationNet incomeDeficit irrigationYield (engineering)Hydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementAgronomyGeologyEngineeringEconomicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical models of crop response to irrigation and weather forecasts with internet access should be fully utilized in modern irrigation management. In this respect, we developed a new numerical scheme to optimize irrigation depth that maximizes net income. Net income was calculated as a function of cumulative transpiration over irrigation interval which depends on irrigation depth. To evaluate this scheme, we carried out a field experiment for groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) grown in a sandy field of the Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, Japan. Two treatments were established to compare the net income of the proposed scheme with that of an automated irrigation system. Results showed that although the proposed scheme gave a larger amount of seasonal irrigation water 28%, it achieved 2.18 times of net income owing to 51% higher yield compared to results of the automated irrigation system. This suggests that the proposed scheme would be more economical tool than automated irrigation systems to optimize irrigation depths.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207