MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411659094 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v12i1.3603

A Review of Deficit Irrigation Strategy Applied on the Citrus Orchards

2025· review· en· W4411659094 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esther Dzigbogia, Shijiang Zhub, Joash Kwasi Ataakorerkpa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeficit irrigationIrrigationHorticultureEnvironmental scienceAgricultural engineeringAgroforestryAgronomyBiologyIrrigation managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Citrus production is a vital component of global agriculture, yet it faces significant challenges due to increasing water scarcity exacerbated by climate change. Deficit irrigation (DI) strategies, such as Regulated Deficit Irrigation (RDI) and Partial Rootzone Drying (PRD), have emerged as effective water-saving techniques to optimize water-use efficiency while maintaining acceptable yields and fruit quality in citrus orchards. RDI involves applying controlled water stress during less sensitive growth stages, such as early fruit development or post-harvest, to reduce water consumption without compromising productivity. PRD alternates irrigation between rootzone sections, inducing mild stress to enhance water use efficiency and fruit quality. Both strategies offer benefits, including improved fruit sugar content, color, and drought resilience, but their implementation requires precise timing, advanced irrigation infrastructure, and continuous monitoring. Challenges such as variability in soil types, economic barriers, and the need for farmer education highlight the importance of targeted research and policy support. This review underscores the potential of DI strategies to promote sustainable citrus production in water-limited regions while addressing the practical and economic constraints faced by growers.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.016 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207