MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412123856 · doi:10.13031/aim.202501161

RZWQM2 Performance in Simulating Maize Yield and Evapotranspiration under Rainfed and Irrigated Conditions

2025· article· en· W4412123856 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Viveka Nand, Zhiming Qi, Liwang Ma, Ward Smith, Elizabeth Pattey, Bruce A. Kimball, Andrew E. Suyker, Steven R. Evett, H. S. Grewal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationYield (engineering)AgronomyEnvironmental scienceIrrigationAgricultural engineeringBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b><sc>Abstract.</sc></b> Precise simulation of actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa) is essential for precisely monitoring drought and scheduling in-season irrigation events thereby optimizing crop yields and enabling sustainable agricultural planning. The objective of this study is to compare the RZWQM2 model performance in simulating ETa and crop yields under both rainfed and irrigated conditions across varying climates which have been rarely studied. We comprehensively calibrated and evaluated the RZWQM2 model using field experiment data, including crop growth stages, soil water content, leaf area index, crop yield, and ETa, from five sites: four in USA (Ames, IA, Bushland, TX, Greeley, CO, and Mead, NE) and one in eastern Canada (Ottawa, ON).Among these, Ames, Mead, and Ottawa represented rainfed systems, while Bushland and Greeley were fully irrigated. Simulated soil water content showed satisfactory agreement with measured data, with RRMSE values below 30% and PBIAS within ±15% in most cases. The RRMSE for daily ETa simulation during the calibration and validation periods was 41.7% and 45.2% (Ames), 28.0% and 29.3% (Mead), 37.2% and 38.9% (Ottawa), 34.3% and 22.3% (Bushland), and 26.1% and 22.5% (Greeley), respectively. The corresponding PBIAS values were –2.5% and –0.7% (Ames), –9.5% and –3.7% (Mead), 3.2% and –6.0% (Ottawa), –4.0% and –0.7% (Bushland), and –5.7% and –1.4% (Greeley). These results suggest acceptable model performance for daily ETa at irrigated sites, while performance was unsatisfactory at rainfed sites except for Mead, based on RRMSE. Nevertheless, PBIAS values remained within acceptable limits across all sites. However, the model performance for weekly cumulative ETa was acceptable at rainfed sites. Simulated crop yields exhibited strong agreement with observed values, with RRMSE below 30% and PBIAS within ±15% at all sites. Overall, the RZWQM2 model demonstrated reliable performance in simulating crop yields and deep layer soil water content across both rainfed and irrigated systems. However, its ability to simulate daily ETa was satisfactory in irrigated conditions than rainfed.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207