MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387909139 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3364404/v1

Potential deficit irrigation adaptation strategies under climate change for sustaining cotton production in hyper–arid areas

2023· preprint· en· W4387909139 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiming Qi, Xiaoping Chen, Haibo Dong, Dongwei GUI, Liwang Ma, Kelly R. Thorp, Robert W. Malone, Hao Wu, Bo Liu, Shaoyuan Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsIrrigationEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceDeficit irrigationClimate changeAridWater-use efficiencyAgronomyIrrigation managementBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Affected by climate change and elevated atmospheric CO 2 levels, the efficacy of agricultural management practices is of particular concern in a hyper–arid area. Herein, the effects of future climate change on cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield and water use efficiency (WUE) was assessed under deficit irrigation strategies in China’s southern Xinjiang region. A previously calibrated and validated RZWQM2 model simulated cotton production for two time periods ranging between 2061–2080 and 2081–2100, under two automatic irrigation methods [crop evapotranspiration (ET–based) and plant available water (PAW–based)], factorially combined with four irrigation levels (100%, 80%, 60%, and 50%). Weather information was obtained from ten general circulation models, and three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways were tested. Simulation results showed that the irrigation strategy had a greater impact than climatic change on water use and crop production of cotton. Under climate change, both ET– and PAW–based irrigation methods with deficit irrigation showed a simulated decrease in water use and production of cotton compared to the baseline (1960–2019). Under future climate conditions, for a given irrigation level, PAW–based irrigation led to 35.3 mm–135 mm (7.4–53.9%) greater water use for cotton than did ET–based irrigation. For the 2061–2080 period, mean simulated seed cotton yields were 4.47, 3.69, 2.29 and 1.63 Mg ha –1 with the 100%, 80%, 60% and 50% ET–based irrigation protocols, respectively, and 4.46, 4.41, 3.85 and 3.34 Mg ha –1 with the equivalent PAW–based irrigation protocols. Similar yields were simulated for the 2081–2100 period. In addition, the 80% PAW–based or 100% ET–based irrigation protocols under future climate change provided the greatest cotton WUE in southern Xinjiang.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207