Combining Remotely Sensed Evapotranspiration and an Agroecosystem Model to Estimate Center‐Pivot Irrigation Water Use at High Spatio‐Temporal Resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimating irrigation water use accurately is critical for sustainable irrigation and studying terrestrial water cycle in irrigated croplands. However, irrigation is not monitored in most places, and current estimations of irrigation water use has coarse spatial and/or temporal resolutions. This study aims to estimate irrigation water use at the daily and field scale through the proposed model‐data fusion framework, which is achieved by particle filtering with two configurations (concurrent, CON, and sequential, SEQ) by assimilating satellite‐based evapotranspiration (ET) observations into an advanced agroecosystem model, ecosys . Two types of experiments using synthetic and real ET observations were conducted to study the efficacy of the proposed framework for estimating irrigation water use at the irrigated fields in eastern and western Nebraska, United States. The experiments using synthetic ET observations indicated that, for two major sources of uncertainties of ET difference between observations and model simulations, which are bias and noise, noise had larger impacts on degrading the estimation performance of irrigation water use than bias. For the experiments using real ET observations, monthly and annual estimations of irrigation water use matched well with farmer irrigation records, with Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) around 0.80 and 0.50, respectively. Although detecting daily irrigation records was very challenging, our method still gave a good performance with RMSE, BIAS, and r around 2.90, 0.03, and 0.4 mm/d, respectively. Our proposed model‐data fusion framework for estimating irrigation water use at high spatio‐temporal resolution could contribute to regional water management, sustainable irrigation, and better tracking terrestrial water cycle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".