MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417015480 · doi:10.5376/mgg.2025.16.0024

Effects of Irrigation Regulation on Maize Growth and Development

2025· article· W4417015480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xingzhu Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueMaize Genomics and Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationYield (engineering)Deficit irrigationAgricultureCrop yieldProduction (economics)Resource (disambiguation)NutrientSurface irrigation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maize ( Zea mays L.) is an important food crop in the world, widely used for food, feed and industrial processing. Its growth, development and yield are highly dependent on water supply, especially in areas with insufficient precipitation or unstable climate. This study systematically explored the role of irrigation regulation in different growth stages of maize, focusing on its effects on maize physiological characteristics, yield formation and quality stability. Studies have shown that timely and appropriate irrigation can help improve photosynthetic capacity, promote root development and nutrient absorption, thereby increasing grain yield and water use efficiency. This study compared various irrigation methods such as drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation and furrow irrigation, and explored the effects of irrigation timing and frequency on yield and resource efficiency. Through case analysis of semi-arid areas in North China and oasis agriculture in Northwest China, the application effect of regionalized and precision irrigation strategies was demonstrated, hoping to provide technical guidance for maize production in different climate zones, improve irrigation efficiency and resource utilization, and achieve the win-win goal of increasing grain production and protecting the environment.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 venueMaize Genomics and GeneticsSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207