Claim · model-written summary
Average cotton flow rate had no significant effect on load prediction errors.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Outcome
- load prediction errorse0
- Direction
- nosignificant effecte0
- Qualifier
- Average cotton flow ratee0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average cotton flow rate, cottonmoisture content, and the amount of time elapsed since last system calibration had nosignificant effect on load prediction errors”
t0“Cotton Yield Mapping”
Title
Development and Evaluation of a Flow Measurement Device for Cotton Yield Mapping
John B. Wilkerson; F. Henry Moody; William E. Hart 2001 Sacramento, CA July 29-August 1,2001 2001. doi:10.13031/2013.5522
Other claims from this paper (6)
- Method / resource Integrated cotton flow measurements predicted load mass with mean error of 4.0 percent.
- Method / resource Debris accumulation on sensor faces did not degrade performance across harvest seasons.
- Association Cotton moisture content had no significant effect on load prediction errors.
- Association Time since calibration had no significant effect on load prediction errors.
- Association Cotton variety significantly affected load prediction errors.
- Recommendation The authors recommend checking calibration when the harvested cotton variety changes.