Yield response to water Sample Clauses

Yield response to water. The impact of “future” climate projections (2050) and “extreme weather” (2050+1) on potential yield, also considering the relative effect of selected adaptation strategies (planting dates, variety selection and deficit irrigation strategies), is summarized in the following tables and graphs. In brief, the following observations are reported: ‐ potential yield is projected to reduce under “future” scenario (2050) with respect to current conditions (2000), on average from 6.4 to 6.1 t ha‐1 (about ‐4.6%), depending on irrigation strategies (tab. 56 and fig.41) and planting dates (tab. 57 and fig.41) as a consequence of the expected shortening of the crop growing cycle; ‐ on the contrary, if the expected fertilizing effect due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will occur, yield is projected to increase in quite all conditions (2050 wp_adj), up to an average of 7.4 t ha‐1 (+14.5%), and thus to overcome the effect of the shortening of the crop cycle (fig. 41 and tab.56‐57); ‐ on the other side, if a late maturing variety (2050 late_var) is selected, yield is projected to increase up to an average of 6.9 t ha‐1 (+7.6%), especially under fully irrigation (fig. 41 and tab. 56‐57); ‐ if “extreme weather” conditions (2050+1) are considered, the average expected yield reduction (down to 6.0 t ha‐1, ‐6.8%) is greater than in 2050 scenario, but also in this case it could be completely recovered because of the CO2 fertilizing effect or the late‐variety selection, respectively to 7.2 t ha‐1 (+11.8%) and 6.7 t ha‐1 (+5.1%); ‐ with respect to irrigation strategies, there is a clear reduction in potential yield under increasing water stress conditions (fig.41), but still under “severe” water stress (thus only supported by supplemental irrigations) values up to 3‐4 t ha‐1 are expected, while under rainfed conditions, an average yield of 1.5‐2 t ha‐1 is still predicted in all climate conditions; ‐ yield is observed always to increase (in absolute terms) for late (February) planting date with respect to earlier (October) ones (fig.41), but a corresponding increase in crop water requirements is clearly projected (as it has been highlighted in the previous paragraph). Irrigation strategy Yield 2000 (*) Yield 2050 (*) Yield 2050 wp_adj (**) Yield 2050 late_var (*) Yield 2050+1 (*) Yield 2050+1 wp_adj (**) Yield 2050+1 late_var (*) (t/ha) (t/ha) var.% (2000) (t/ha) var.% (2000) (t/ha) var.% (2000) (t/ha) var.% (2000) (t/ha) var.% (2000) (t/ha) var.% (2000) full 6.4 6....
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Yield response to water. The impact of climate change on potential yield, also considering the relative effect of selected adaptation strategies (planting dates, variety selection and deficit irrigation strategies), is summarized in the following tables and graphs. In brief, the following observations are reported: ‐ maximum yield is projected to reduce under “future” scenario (2050) with respect to current conditions (2000), on average from 66.4 to 61.9 t ha‐1 (about ‐6.8%), depending on irrigation strategies (tab. 29 and fig.20) and planting dates (tab. 30 and fig. 20) as a consequence of the expected shortening of the crop growing cycle; ‐ on the contrary, if the expected fertilizing effect due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will occur, yield (2050 wp_adj) is projected to increase in quite all conditions (with an average of 74.3 t ha‐1, +11.9%), and thus to overcome the effect of the shortening of the crop cycle (fig. 20 and tab.29‐30); ‐ on the other side, if a late maturing variety (2050 late_var) is selected, yield is projected to increase (with an average of 67.3 t ha‐1, +1.3%), especially under fully irrigation and late planting dates (fig. 20 and tab. 29‐30); ‐ there is a clear reduction in potential yield under increasing water stress conditions (fig.), but still under “severe” water stress (thus only supported by supplemental irrigations) values of 12‐30 t ha‐1 are still possible to be reached; in the case of rainfed conditions, according to the model used, no yield is expected in all conditions; ‐ yield is observed to slightly decrease (in absolute terms) for late (April) planting date with respect to earlier (February) ones (fig.20), because of the shortening of the growing cycle due to its shifting in the hotter summer. Tab. 29 – Effect of irrigation strategies, variety selection and atmospheric CO2 increase on the potential yield of tomato in Jordan river basin (Jordan) under “present” and “future” climate conditions. Irrigation strategy Yield 2000 (*) Yield 2050 (*) Yield 2050 wp_adj (**) Yield 2050 late_var (*) (t/ha) (t/ha) (variation vs 2000) (t/ha) (variation vs 2000) (t/ha) (variation vs 2000) full 66.4 61.9 ‐6.8% 74.3 11.9% 67.3 1.3% mild1 59.1 55.3 ‐6.5% 66.4 12.2% 59.7 1.0% mild2 44.1 41.8 ‐5.4% 50.1 13.6% 44.9 1.8% medium 44.5 41.6 ‐6.4% 49.9 12.3% 44.7 0.5% severe1 26.8 25.8 ‐3.9% 30.9 15.4% 27.4 2.1% severe2 13.7 13.5 ‐1.8% 16.2 17.8% 14.0 2.0% rainfed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Irrigation strategy Yield 2000 (*) Yield 2050 (*) Yield 2050 wp_adj (*...
Yield response to water. The impact of climate change on potential yield, considering the relative effect of selected adaptation strategies (deficit irrigation strategies), as estimated by the two different yield response models of Xxx et al. (1988) and Xxxxxxx et al. (2003) (presented in chapter 2.1.3) are summarized in the following tables and graphs. According to the results of the first model (Xxx et al., 1988) (tab. 42‐43 and fig.29): ‐ yield is projected to increase under both “future” (2050) and “extreme weather” (2050+1) scenarios with respect to current conditions (2000), on average respectively from 13.9 to 14.6 (about +5%) and to 14.7 t ha‐1 (+5.9%), depending on irrigation strategies and Kc model considered, as a consequence of the expected increase of ETc; ‐ a clear linear reduction in potential yield under increasing water stress conditions is observed (fig.29); ‐ under “severe” water stress (thus only supported by supplemental irrigations) values of 4‐7 t ha‐1 are still predicted; ‐ in the case of rainfed conditions, very low yield (around 1 t ha‐1) is predicted. According to the results of the alternative model (Xxxxxxx et al., 2003) (tab. 44‐45 and fig.30): ‐ yield is projected to remain relatively stable or slightly decrease under both “future” (2050) and “extreme weather” (2050+1) scenarios with respect to current conditions (2000), on average from 11.5 to 11.3 (about ‐1.4%), depending on irrigation strategies and Kc model considered: ‐ as a consequence of the specific shape of the yield response function curve, a relative stability of potential yield is predicted going from full irrigated to medium stressed conditions, and then reducing under severe stress (only supported by supplemental irrigations) where values of 4‐9 t ha‐1 are still predicted; ‐ in the case of rainfed conditions, no yield is predicted. Irrigation strategy Yield 2000 (*) Yield 2050 (*) Yield 2050 +1 (t/ha) (t/ha) (variation vs 2000) (t/ha) (variation vs 2000) full 13.9 14.6 5.0% 14.7 5.9% mild1 13.0 13.7 5.2% 13.7 5.3% mild2 10.2 10.6 4.2% 10.6 3.9% medium 9.4 10.1 7.6% 10.1 7.1% severe1 7.1 7.5 5.6% 7.3 3.1% severe2 4.1 4.4 6.4% 4.2 3.2% rainfed 1.0 1.0 8.7% 0.9 ‐3.6% Crop model Yield 2000 (*) Yield 2050 (*) Yield 2050 +1 (*) (t/ha) (t/ha) (variation vs 2000) (t/ha) (variation vs 2000) Old_Orgaz_270 12.6 13.2 4.6% 13.2 4.3% New_Orgaz_270 15.0 15.7 4.7% 15.8 4.9% FAO66_270 14.1 14.9 5.7% 15.3 8.3% average 13.9 14.6 5.0% 14.7 5.9% Tab. 44 – Effect of irrigation strategies on the potential yie...

Related to Yield response to water

  • Response to Notice Within ten business days of receiving the Claim Notice, the Respondent must notify the Claimant of its representative to negotiate the dispute.

  • Optional Xactimate Response Attachment (Part 2)

  • Response to Objections Each Party retains the right to respond to any objection raised by a Participating Class Member, including the right to file responsive documents in Court no later than five court days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, or as otherwise ordered or accepted by the Court.

  • Line Item Question Response 46 Do your warranties cover all products, parts, and labor? Warranties are those supplied by the equipment manufacturers. Generally cover parts and labor. * 47 Do your warranties impose usage restrictions or other limitations that adversely affect coverage? Warranty will not cover abuse or lack of maintenance. * 48 Do your warranties cover the expense of technicians' travel time and mileage to perform warranty repairs? Yes * 49 Are there any geographic regions of the United States or Canada (as applicable) for which you cannot provide a certified technician to perform warranty repairs? How will Sourcewell participating entities in these regions be provided service for warranty repair? We have coverage in the United States. * 50 Will you cover warranty service for items made by other manufacturers that are part of your proposal, or are these warranties issues typically passed on to the original equipment manufacturer? We warranty any work we preform. The equipment is covered by the original equipment manufacturer. * 51 What are your proposed exchange and return programs and policies? Special order items are not returnable and will not be exchanged. If a manufacture will take back an item they consider returnable, the return must have an RMA and be returned within 90 days in the original carton. All freight, restocking, damage plus a service fee will be deducted form the credit for equipment. * 52 Describe any service contract options for the items included in your proposal. We offer preventative maintenance contracts for refrigeration equipment in Texas. DFW, Houston, Beaumont and Austin. * 53 Describe your payment terms and accepted payment methods. Standard payment terms are Net 30 days. To be considered for an open account, all new customers will be required to complete a New Customer Application and provide tax exemption certification if applicable. All applicants are subject to Strategic's Credit Terms and Policies and must meet criteria specified therein. Finance charges of 1/5% per month (18% APR) or the maximum rate that an applicant may lawfully contract to pay, whichever is less, on any payment Seller considers past due until collected. Accepted payment methods include check, ACH, wire transfer, credit card * 54 Describe any leasing or financing options available for use by educational or governmental entities. TriMark Strategic has developed business relationships with several reputable third-party leasing companies and can provide Sourcewell customers with information regarding this option upon request. * 55 Describe any standard transaction documents that you propose to use in connection with an awarded contract (order forms, terms and conditions, service level agreements, etc.). Upload a sample of each (as applicable) in the document upload section of your response. Strategic will require a valid Purchase Order from Sourcewell customers. Upon acceptance, Strategic will agree to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Order. All quotes submitted by Strategic to Sourcewell customers will be on a standard Quotation Form and will have this statement regarding the Terms of Sale: "This Quote shall be subject to Trimark's Terms of Sale http//xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/XxxxXxxxx/XxxxXxxxxxxxx/Xxxx/XxxXxxx-Xxxxx- and-Conditions-of-Sale.pdf, which are incorporated herein by reference. The customer's Purchase Order terms and conditions shall govern. *

  • Response to Demand Letter Within 10 days after the receipt of the Demand Letter, RMC shall either: (a) cure the breach to OIG’s satisfaction and pay the applicable Stipulated Penalties or (b) request a hearing before an HHS administrative law judge (ALJ) to dispute OIG’s determination of noncompliance, pursuant to the agreed upon provisions set forth below in Section X.E. In the event RMC elects to request an ALJ hearing, the Stipulated Penalties shall continue to accrue until RMC cures, to OIG’s satisfaction, the alleged breach in dispute. Failure to respond to the Demand Letter in one of these two manners within the allowed time period shall be considered a material breach of this CIA and shall be grounds for exclusion under Section X.D.

  • Incident Response Operator shall have a written incident response plan that reflects best practices and is consistent with industry standards and federal and state law for responding to a data breach, breach of security, privacy incident or unauthorized acquisition or use of any portion of Data, including PII, and agrees to provide LEA, upon request, an executive summary of the written incident response plan.

  • Timely and Sustained Response Interconnection Customer shall ensure that the Small Generating Facility’s real power response to sustained frequency deviations outside of the deadband setting is automatically provided and shall begin immediately after frequency deviates outside of the deadband, and to the extent the Small Generating Facility has operating capability in the direction needed to correct the frequency deviation. Interconnection Customer shall not block or otherwise inhibit the ability of the governor or equivalent controls to respond and shall ensure that the response is not inhibited, except under certain operational constraints including, but not limited to, ambient temperature limitations, physical energy limitations, outages of mechanical equipment, or regulatory requirements. The Small Generating Facility shall sustain the real power response at least until system frequency returns to a value within the deadband setting of the governor or equivalent controls. An Applicable Reliability Standard with equivalent or more stringent requirements shall supersede the above requirements.

  • Notice to NASD In the event any person or entity (regardless of any NASD affiliation or association) is engaged to assist the Company in its search for a merger candidate or to provide any other merger and acquisition services, the Company will provide the following to the NASD and EBC prior to the consummation of the Business Combination: (i) complete details of all services and copies of agreements governing such services; and (ii) justification as to why the person or entity providing the merger and acquisition services should not be considered an "underwriter and related person" with respect to the Company's initial public offering, as such term is defined in Rule 2710 of the NASD's Conduct Rules. The Company also agrees that proper disclosure of such arrangement or potential arrangement will be made in the proxy statement which the Company will file for purposes of soliciting stockholder approval for the Business Combination.

  • Form and Timing of Response (a) Intermediary agrees to provide, promptly upon request of the Fund or its designee, the requested information specified in paragraph 1 above. If requested by the Fund or its designee, Intermediary agrees to use best efforts to determine promptly whether any specific person about whom it has received the identification and transaction information specified in paragraph 1 is itself a financial intermediary (“indirect intermediary”) and, upon further request of the Fund or its designee, promptly either (i) provide (or arrange to have provided) the information set forth in paragraph 1 for those shareholders who hold an account with an indirect intermediary or (ii) restrict or prohibit the indirect intermediary from purchasing, in nominee name on behalf of other persons, securities issued by the Fund. (b) Responses required by this paragraph must be communicated in writing and in a format mutually agreed upon by the parties. (c) To the extent practicable, the format for any transaction information provided to the Fund should be consistent with the NSCC Standardized Data Reporting Format

  • Limitation de responsabilité DANS LA MESURE OÙ LA LÉGISLATION EN VIGUEUR NE L’INTERDIT PAS, EN AUCUN CAS APPLE NE SERA RESPONSABLE DE DOMMAGE CORPOREL NI DE QUELCONQUE DOMMAGE ACCIDENTEL, SPÉCIAL, INDIRECT OU ACCESSOIRE, Y COMPRIS DE FAÇON NON LIMITATIVE, LES DOMMAGES DUS AUX PERTES DE BÉNÉFICES, LES ENDOMMAGEMENTS OU XXX XXXXXX DE DONNÉES, LES ÉCHECS DE TRANSMISSION OU DE RÉCEPTION DE DONNÉES OU D’INFORMATIONS QUELCONQUES, INTERRUPTION DES ACTIVITÉS OU TOUT AUTRE DOMMAGE COMMERCIAL OU PERTE COMMERCIALE RÉSULTANT DE OU RELATIFS À VOTRE UTILISATION OU VOTRE INAPTITUDE À UTILISER LE LOGICIEL APPLE OU LES SERVICES OU TOUT LOGICIEL XX XXXXXX PARTIE CONJOINTEMENT AVEC LE LOGICIEL APPLE OU LES SERVICES, QUELLE QU’EN SOIT LA CAUSE, SANS TENIR COMPTE DE LA THÉORIE DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ (QUE CE SOIT POUR RUPTURE DE CONTRAT, EN RESPONSABILITÉ CIVILE, OU AUTRE) ET MÊME SI APPLE A ÉTÉ INFORMÉ DE LA POSSIBILITÉ DE TELS DOMMAGES. CERTAINES JURIDICTIONS NE PERMETTANT PAS LA LIMITATION OU L’EXCLUSION DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ POUR DOMMAGES CORPORELS, INDIRECTS OU ACCESSOIRES, IL EST POSSIBLE QUE CETTE LIMITATION NE VOUS CONCERNE PAS. La responsabilité totale d’Apple envers vous au titre de tout dommage (en dehors de ce que la législation pourrait exiger dans les cas impliquant une blessure) n’excédera en aucun cas la somme de cinquante dollars (50 $). Les limitations susdites s’appliqueront même si le recours indiqué ci-dessus fait défaut à sa vocation essentielle.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!