Irrigation Scheduling Approaches and Applications: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to improve plant growth and to achieve high yield and/or quality, irrigation scheduling (IS) seeks to provide plants with appropriate quantities of water at appropriate times. To better understand irrigation scheduling’s main processes and principles, its four most common methods of operation—(1) evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), (2) soil moisture (Θ) status, (3) plant water status, and (4) models—along with their pros and cons are introduced and compared. Irrigation applications, including software, programs, and associated controllers are introduced. Given that some of these methods focus on Θ or plant responses to soil moisture, the determination of target soil moisture levels, along with estimates (either calculated or measured) of current soil moisture status are key to both scheduling irrigations, and the precise replenishment of soil moisture to target levels. Accordingly, factors in the soil-crop-atmosphere system affecting soil moisture must be considered in the scheduling process. As all four types of IS methods focus on soil water content, which serves as a bridge between irrigation management and crop water requirements for growth, future scheduling methods should focus on the management of soil moisture based on an advanced understanding of its effects on crop growth either by the integration of existing IS methods or the development of new models, using intelligent algorithms. Using these approaches, more practical, accurate, and easily adaptable IS applications should be developed for real-time farming operations. Weather station networks and online data access should be enhanced to better serve these IS applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".