Joint Modeling of Crop and Irrigation in the central United States Using the Noah‐MP Land Surface Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Representing climate‐crop interactions is critical to Earth system modeling. Despite recent progress in modeling dynamic crop growth and irrigation in land surface models (LSMs), transitioning these models from field to regional scales is still challenging. This study applies the Noah‐MP LSM with dynamic crop‐growth and irrigation schemes to jointly simulate the crop yield and irrigation amount for corn and soybean in the central United States. The model performance of crop yield and irrigation amount are evaluated at county‐level against the USDA reports and USGS water withdrawal data, respectively. The bulk simulation (with uniform planting/harvesting management and no irrigation) produces significant biases in crop yield estimates for all planting regions, with root‐mean‐square‐errors (RMSEs) being 28.1% and 28.4% for corn and soybean, respectively. Without an irrigation scheme, the crop yields in the irrigated regions are reduced due to water stress with RMSEs of 48.7% and 20.5%. Applying a dynamic irrigation scheme effectively improves crop yields in irrigated regions and reduces RMSEs to 22.3% and 16.8%. In rainfed regions, the model overestimates crop yields. Applying spatially varied planting and harvesting dates at state‐level reduces crop yields and irrigation amount for both crops, especially in northern states. A “nitrogen‐stressed” simulation is conducted and found that the improvement of irrigation on crop yields is limited when the crops are under nitrogen stress. Several uncertainties in modeling crop growth are identified, including yield‐gap, planting date, rubisco capacity, and discrepancies between available data sets, pointing to future efforts to incorporating spatially varying crop parameters to better constrain crop growing seasons.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".