Factors affecting the use of weather station data in predicting surface soil moisture for agricultural applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weather stations often provide key information related to soil moisture; temperature and evaporation are used by farmers to decide farm operations of nearby agricultural fields. However, the site conditions at the weather stations where data are recorded may not be similar with these nearby fields. The objective of this study was to determine the level of discrepancies in surface soil moisture between weather stations and nearby agricultural fields based on (i) the soil texture, crop residue cover, crop type, growth stages and (ii) temporal dependency of soil moisture to recent rainfall and evaporation rates. Soil moisture from 25 weather stations in the North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network (NDAWN) and 75 nearby fields were measured biweekly during the 2019 growing season in Red River Valley. Field characteristics including soil texture, crop residue cover, crop type, and growth stages along with rainfall and PET were collected during the study period. The regression analysis between surface soil moisture at weather station and nearby field showed higher values for corn at V10 stage (r2 = 0.92) and for wheat at flowering stage (r2 = 0.68) and opposite was observed with soybean. We found the regression coefficient of soil moisture with 4-d cumulative rainfall slightly increased to 0.51 with an increase in percent residue cover resulting in a decreased root mean square error (RMSE) to 0.063 m3·m−3. In general, we observed that surface soil moisture at weather stations could reasonably predict moisture in nearby agricultural fields considering crop type, soil type, weather, and distance from weather station.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".