Precision Irrigation Strategies for Sustainable Water Budgeting of Potato Crop in Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change induced uneven patterns of rainfall emphasize the use of supplemental irrigation in rainfed agriculture. The Penman–Monteith method was used to calculate supplemental irrigation for water budgeting of a potato crop in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Cumulative gaps between rainfall and crop evapotranspiration (ETc) during August and September of the study years were due to high crop coefficient factor, justifying the need for supplemental irrigation. Pressurized irrigation systems, including sprinklers, fertigation, and drip irrigation were installed, to evaluate the impact of scheduled supplemental irrigation in offsetting deficits in irrigation water requirements in comparison with conventional practice of rainfed cultivation (control). A two-way ANOVA examined the effect of irrigation methods and year on potato tuber yield, water productivity, tuber quality, and payout. Sprinkler and fertigation systems performed better than drip and control treatments. In terms of payout returns and potato tuber quality (percentage of marketable potatoes), the sprinkler treatment performed significantly better than the other treatments. However, for water productivity, fertigation treatment performed significantly better than control and sprinkler treatments during both years. The use of supplemental irrigation is recommended for profitable cultivation of potatoes in soil, agricultural, and environmental conditions resembling to those of Prince Edward Island.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".