Irrigation Water Demand Model as a Comparative Tool for Assessing Effects of Land Use Changes for Agricultural Crops in Fraser Valley, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available water for human needs and agriculture is a growing global concern. Agriculture uses approximately 70% of global freshwater, mainly for irrigation. The Lower Fraser Valley (LFV), British Columbia, is one of the most productive agricultural regions in Canada, supporting livestock production and a wide variety of crops. Water scarcity is a growing concern that threatens the long-term productivity, sustainability, and economic viability of the LFV’s agriculture. We used the BC Agriculture Water Demand Model as a tool to determine how crop choice, irrigation system, and land-use changes can affect predicted water requirements under these different conditions, which can aid stakeholders to formulate better management decisions. We conducted a comparative assessment of the irrigation water demand of seven major commercial crops, by distinct soil management groups, at nineteen representative sites, that use both sprinkler vs drip irrigation. Drip irrigation was consistently more water-efficient than sprinkler irrigation for all crops. Of the major commercial crops assessed, raspberries were the most efficient in irrigation water demand, while forage and pasture had the highest calculated irrigation water demand. Significant reductions in total irrigation water demand (up to 57%) can be made by switching irrigation systems and/or crops. This assessment can aid LFV growers in their land-use choices and could contribute to the selection of water management decisions and agricultural policies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".