Soil Water Content and High-Resolution Imagery for Precision Irrigation: Maize Yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvement in water use efficiency of crops is a key component in addressing the increasing global water demand. The time and depth of the soil water monitoring are essential when defining the amount of water to be applied to irrigated crops. Precision irrigation (PI) is a relatively new concept in agriculture, and it provides a vast potential for enhancing water use efficiency, while maintaining or increasing grain yield. Neutron probes (NPs) have consistently been used as a robust and accurate method to estimate soil water content (SWC). Remote sensing derived vegetation indices have been successfully used to estimate variability of Leaf Area Index and biomass, which are related to root water uptake. Crop yield has not been evaluated on a basis of SWC, as explained by NPs in time and at different depths. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the optimal time and depth of SWC and its relationship to maize grain yield (2) to determine if satellite-derived vegetation indices coupled with SWC could further improve the relationship between maize grain yield and SWC. Soil water and remote sensing data were collected throughout the crop season and analyzed. The results from the automated model selection of SWC readings, used to assess maize yield, consistently selected three dates spread around reproductive growth stages for most depths (p value < 0.05). SWC readings at the 90 cm depth had the highest correlation with maize yield, followed closely by the 120 cm. When coupled with remote sensing data, models improved by adding vegetation indices representing the crop health status at V9, right before tasseling. Thus, SWC monitoring at reproductive stages combined with vegetation indices could be a tool for improving maize irrigation management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".