Increasing the Productivity and Efficiency of Water Use by Reserving Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One use of technology in agriculture involves setting up a reserving sheet for subsurface moisture under the root zone of wheat crops, which is symbolized by SWRT, to conserve the water in the root zone. This reduces the field water losses by raising the efficiency of water use (WUE) and economical water productivity (EWP). For this study, an SWRT membrane sheet was put under the root zone of wheat crops throughout the growing season, from the winter of November 2019 to the end of the season in April 2020, in a free field. The study was conducted on a private farm located in the province of Babylon in Sadat Al-Hindya Town, which is approximately 70 km from the capital (Baghdad). Surface irrigation was utilized for the irrigation of the wheat crops. Two methods were used: method A1 utilized the SWRT sheet and method A2 was conducted without the SWRT sheet. The irrigation water supply, irrigation period, and soil water content before and after irrigation were computed and recorded every day for the A1 and A2 methods. The values of wheat crop production (yield), water use efficiency, and economical water productivity from the two plots were computed and compared. The results obtained for water use efficiency for the two methods, A1 and A2, were 0.51 and 0.47 kg/m3, respectively. The increment in yield of plot A1 compared with plot A2 was 6.45%. The increment in WUE of plot A1 compared with plot A2 was 8.55%. In addition, the WP of the wheat crop for plots A1 and A2 were 144.44 and 119.16 ID/m3, respectively, while the increment in WP of plot A1 compared with plot A2 was 21.21%. The findings show that the SWRT method prevents the environmental effects of pesticide and fertilizers that enter the groundwater and pollute it. This technology assists in saving water and plant nutrients, and prevents pollution of the groundwater from pesticides and excess fertiliser.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".