MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910199136 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n3p67

Estimating Impacts of Land Use Change on Evapotranspiration for Three Agricultural Crops in Malta—A Preliminary Assessment

2019· article· en· W2910199136 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Fenech, Jerry Knox, Malcolm Borg, Christian Camilleri, Alex Rizzo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeMet Office
KeywordsEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceWater useAgricultureCrop coefficientWater resourcesBaseline (sea)Agricultural landFarm waterSustainabilityLand useHydrology (agriculture)CropWater resource managementIrrigationAgronomyWater conservationGeographyForestryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating evapotranspiration is crucial for better management of catchment water resources. In this study, the FAO CropWat model was used to estimate reference evapotranspiration (ETo), crop evapotranspiration (ETc), and total gross water requirements for three economically important agricultural crops grown in Malta: potatoes, wheat, and vineyards for three years representative of a typically wet (2003), average (2009), and dry (2013) year. In addition, changes in ETc due to changes in land use were estimated for 2009 and 2013 relative to a 2003 baseline. Across all three years and crops, the average ETo rates were estimated to range between 3.7 mm day -1 (2003) and 4.0 mm day-1 (2013) while average ETc rates were estimated to range between 1.6 mm day-1 and 5.3 mm day-1, respectively. For all three years, the highest total gross water requirement was estimated for wheat, reaching a maximum of 1450 mm in 2013. The results suggest that changes in land use between 2003 and 2013 were the main driver for changes in crop water demand. Differences in water demand compared to 2003 were estimated to range between -38% and 60%. This could have a substantial impact on the future sustainability of Malta’s increasingly constrained water resources.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesFrench-language works237,207