Optimization of Cotton Field Irrigation Scheduling Using the AquaCrop Model Assimilated with UAV Remote Sensing and Particle Swarm Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In arid and semi-arid agricultural regions, the increasing frequency of extreme climatic events—particularly high temperatures and drought—has severely disrupted crop growth dynamics, leading to significant yield uncertainty and potential threats to the growing global food demand. Optimizing irrigation strategies by integrating dynamic crop growth monitoring and accurate yield estimation is essential for mitigating the adverse effects of extreme weather and promoting sustainable agricultural development. Therefore, this study conducted two consecutive years of field experiments in cotton fields to evaluate the effects of irrigation interval and drip irrigation frequency on cotton growth dynamics and yield, and to develop an optimized irrigation schedule based on the AquaCrop model assimilated with Particle Swarm Optimization (AquaCrop-PSO). The sensitivity analysis identified the canopy growth coefficient (CGC), maximum canopy cover (CCX), and canopy cover at 90% emergence (CCS) as the most influential parameters for canopy cover (CC) simulation, while the crop coefficient at full canopy (KCTRX), water productivity (WP), and CGC were most sensitive for aboveground biomass (AGB) simulation. Ridge regression models integrating multiple vegetation indices outperformed single-index models in estimating CC and AGB across different growth stages, achieving R2 values of 0.73 and 0.87, respectively. Assimilating both CC and AGB as dual-state variables significantly improved the model’s predictive accuracy for cotton yield, with R2 values of 0.96 and 0.95 in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Scenario simulations revealed that the optimal irrigation quotas for dry, normal, and wet years were 520 mm, 420 mm, and 420 mm, respectively, with a consistent irrigation interval of five days. This study provides theoretical insights and practical guidance for irrigation scheduling, yield prediction, and smart irrigation management in drip-irrigated cotton fields in Xinjiang, China.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".