查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 推估稻穀田間產量方法之比較
- 颱洪逐時區域平均兩量最佳化估計之研究
- 二分法記分測驗簡捷信度估計公式之改進及其應用
- 塔塔加高山地區鐵杉、玉山箭竹及草原表土之物理與化學性質比較
- On Incomplete Data and the Bias-Corrected Jackknife Estimate
- A Maximum Likelihood Estimator and Fractal Analysis of Medical Images
- Bayesian Estimation for the Optimum in Single Factor Quadratic Regression
- Moisture Sorption Isotherms of Peas
- Efficient Block Matching Algorithm for Video Coding Using the Generalized Edge Feature Matching Technique
- A Fast Motion Estimation Vector Algorithm Using Successive Refinement by Subsampling
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 推估稻穀田間產量方法之比較=Method Comparison for Estimating Rice Yield of Fields |
---|---|
作 者 | 朱培仁; 林江龍; 許舒揚; 謝清祿; | 書刊名 | 台灣農學會報 |
卷 期 | 14:6 2013.12[民102.12] |
頁 次 | 頁545-564 |
分類號 | 434.119 |
關鍵詞 | 稻穀產量; 實收量; 實收面積; 估計; 容重; 含水率; Rice yield; Harvest yield; Harvest area; Estimation; Volume weight; Moisture content; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 政府為制定糧食供需,每年均需執行稻穀產量調查,並以人工坪割法進行產量估算,包括濕穀產量與乾穀產量。該方法,全台每年抽選2000個以上的坪割點,進行稻株採樣收割、脫穀、風選、乾燥、秤重等工作,此項工作甚為辛苦且耗時,有需探討改進。故本項研究試驗實收產量法與人工坪割法在濕穀產量的差異,並探討三種測量組合方法(1)連續式容重器與單粒水份計、(2)容重水份計、(3)打斗筒與電阻式水分計,所得稻穀容重與含水率,透過換算公式,推估乾穀產量與(4)人工坪割法的差異。本研究選定屏東地區的12個樣本田進行試驗。試驗結果顯示,本研究的實收產量法與人工坪割法在風選前樣本上,濕穀產量無顯著差異,代表可用本實收產量法,取代人工坪割法;對於乾穀產量推估方面,三種量測組合方法,所推估乾穀產量,經統計檢定,彼此間沒有顯著差異,但與人工坪割法皆有顯著差異,故所試驗的三種方法,皆無法取代人工坪割法。個別田區比較結果顯示,風選後樣本,三種方法與人工坪割法在乾穀產量有6塊樣本田差異在5%以內,全部樣本田的差異絕對百分比平均約為13%。研究發現,選取較健康、不罹病、不倒伏且方正的稻田,遵守標準取樣方式,分散隨機取樣濕穀樣本,校正儀器且多筆測量,可得到與人工坪割較低差異的推估產量。 |
英文摘要 | To set the policy on food supply, the government agency needs to survey rice yield in Taiwan. Every year, over 2000 points are sampled. The survey work (named the conventional method) includes harvesting, threshing, fan cleaning, drying, and weighing rice samples. It is tedious and time consuming and, therefore, there is a need for an alternative. This study tests new methods and compares the difference in wet rice yield and dry rice yield with the conventional method. Twelve sample fields were selected and tested in Pingtung in 2013. The results show there was no significant difference in the comparison of wet rice yield measured by the conventional method and by the proposed method, suggesting the proposed method is a valid alternative for yield estimation. For dry rice yield, testing of three proposed methods showed no significant difference, but each method significantly differed from the conventional method. The absolute difference percentage for all samples is about 13% on average, and among them, six samples are less than 5%. The results also suggest less difference in yield can be obtained when procedures are conducted as follows: 1) select good rice condition and field condition, 2) follow the standard straw sampling process, 3) calibrate the instruments. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。