ArticleScientific reports2025
Integrating image processing and machine learning for phase specific estimation of Manning roughness coefficient in furrow irrigation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate estimation of Manning's roughness coefficient (n) is vital for hydrological modeling and optimizing furrow irrigation systems, yet traditional methods remain limited due to spatial-temporal variability, the need for expert users, the inherent limitations of hydraulic equations, and labor-intensive measurements. This study introduces a novel algorithm that integrates high-resolution image processing with machine learning techniques to dynamically predict n during advance and storage phases in bare furrows. Three scenarios were evaluated: (i) full-field data (including inflow/outflow rates, advance/recession times, infiltration, slope, soil moisture, furrow images and etc.), (ii) images only, and (iii) images plus selected field data (inflow rate, slope, cross-sectional area, clod size and irrigation events). Manning's n was computed using the SIPAR_ID model and Manning's equation in advance and storage phases, yielding ranges of 0.017-0.636 (advance phase) and 0.015-0.317 (storage phase), with respective means of 0.083 and 0.054. The Random Forest algorithm in Scenario (i) achieved near-perfect performance (99% precision, recall, and F1-score), while Scenario (iii) preserved 95-96% accuracy with significantly reduced data inputs. Notably, excluding hydraulic variables (Scenario ii) led to a ~ 50% performance drop, highlighting their importance. This approach offers a robust, cost-effective solution for n estimation, bridging the gap between precision, practicality, and real-time application in sustainable water management and precision agriculture.
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.