ArticlePeerJ2019
Analyzing moisture-heat coupling in a wheat-soil system using data-driven vector autoregression model.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soil temperature and moisture have a close relationship, the accurate controlling of which is important for crop growth. Mechanistic models built by previous studies need exhaustive parameters and seldom consider time stochasticity and lagging effect. To circumvent these problems, this study designed a data-driven stochastic model analyzing soil moisture-heat coupling. Firstly, three vector autoregression models are built using hourly data on soil moisture and temperature at the depth of 10, 30, and 90 cm. Secondly, from impulse response functions, the time lag and intensity of two variables' response to one unit of positive shock can be obtained, which describe the time length and strength at which temperature and moisture affect each other, indicating the degree of coupling. Thirdly, Granger causality tests unfold whether one variable's past value helps predict the other's future value. Analyzing data obtained from Shangqiu Experiment Station in Central China, we obtained three conclusions. Firstly, moisture's response time lag is 25, 50, and 120 h, while temperature's response time lag is 50, 120, and 120 h at 10, 30, and 90 cm. Secondly, temperature's response intensity is 0.2004, 0.0163, and 0.0035 °C for 1% variation in moisture, and moisture's response intensity is 0.0638%, 0.0163%, and 0.0050% for 1 °C variation in temperature at 10, 30, and 90 cm. Thirdly, the past value of soil moisture helps predict soil temperature at 10, 30, and 90 cm. Besides, the past value of soil temperature helps predict soil moisture at 10 and 30 cm, but not at 90 cm. We verified this model by using data from a different year and linking it to soil plant atmospheric continuum model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.