English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The irrigation water is a requirement of crops and is based on the estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) of each particular area, are subject to the limitation of existing meteorological data. The objective was to calculate ETo with FAO-Penman-Monteith (FAO-PM), Hargreaves (H), Priestly-Taylor (PT) and artificial neural networks (ANN). We used data from the weather station of Chapingo for the period 2003-2009. In the H and PT methods, four climatic variables were used for their calculation and in ANN were constructed different scenarios to evaluate the performance of the network, by changing the input climatic variables and the number of neurons in the hidden layer. The results of the coefficient of determination (r 2 ) and root mean square error (RMSE) of H and PT are: 0.5378, 0.8553 and 0.6977, 0.6501 respectively. For ANN was found that with the largest number of variables and neurons in the hidden layer was obtained an r 2 0.9986, and RMSE 0.0297 and in the scenario with the least number of variables and neurons in the hidden layer were 0.7549 and 0.5555. If you count with all the climatic variables ANN is better because the RMSE results are close to zero and its r 2 approaches

Evapotranspiración de referencia estimada con Fao-Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, Hargreaves y RNA