Optimizing Irrigation Strategies to Improve Water Use Efficiency of Cotton in Northwest China Using RZWQM2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is produced mainly in Northwest China, where groundwater is heavily used. To alleviate water scarcity and increase regional economic benefits, a four-year (2016–2019) field experiment was conducted in Qira Oasis, Xingjiang Province, to evaluate irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) in cotton production using the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2), that was calibrated and validated using volumetric soil water content (θ), soil temperature (Tsoil°) and plant transpiration (T), along with cotton growth and yield data collected from full and deficit irrigation experimental plots managed with a newly developed Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS). In the validation phase, RZWQM2 adequately simulated (S) topsoil θ and Tsoil°, as well as cotton growth (average index of agreement (IOA) > 0.76). Relative root mean squared error (RRMSE) and percent bias (PBIAS) of cotton seed yield were 8% and 2.5%, respectively, during calibration, and 20% and −10.3% during validation. The cotton crop’s (M) T was well S (−18% < PBIAS < 14% and IOA > 0.95) for both full and deficit irrigation fields. The validated RZWQM2 model was subsequently run with seven irrigation scenarios with 850 to 350 mm water (Irr850, Irr750, Irr700, Irr650, Irr550, Irr450, and Irr350) and long-term (1990–2019) weather data to determine the best IWUE. Simulation results showed that the Irr650 treatment generated the greatest cotton seed yield (4.09 Mg ha−1) and net income (US $3165 ha−1), while the Irr550 treatment achieved the greatest IWUE (6.53 kg ha−1 mm−1) and net water production (0.94 $ m−3). These results provided farmers guidelines to adopt deficit irrigation strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".