MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379387948 · doi:10.1080/02626667.2023.2218552

Quantifying irrigation uptake in olive trees: a proof-of-concept approach combining isotope tracing and Hydrus-1D

2023· article· en· W4379387948 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Nasta, Diego Todini‐Zicavo, Giulia Zuecco, Chiara Marchina, Daniele Penna, Jeffrey J. McDonnell, Anam Amin, Carolina Allocca, Fabio Marzaioli, Luisa Stellato, Marco Borga, Nunzio Romano

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceTranspirationIrrigationSoil waterXylemTracingTRACERHydrology (agriculture)Water useSoil scienceOlive treesAgronomyGeologyChemistryBotanyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An isotope-enabled module of Hydrus-1D was applied to a potted olive tree to trace water parcels originating from 26 irrigation events in a glasshouse experiment. The soil hydraulic parameters were optimized via inverse modelling by minimizing the discrepancies between observed and simulated soil water content and soil water isotope (18O) values at three soil depths. The model’s performance was validated with observed sap flow z-scores and xylem water 18O. We quantified the source and transit time of irrigation water by analysing the mass breakthrough curves derived from a virtual tracer injection experiment. On average, 26% of irrigation water was removed by plant transpiration with a mean transit time of 94 hours. Our proof of concept work suggests that transit time may represent a functional indicator for the uptake of irrigation water in agricultural ecosystems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological Sciences JournalSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207