Land use interactions drive southwestern Ontario stream nutrient concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human activities have transformed the landscape and altered natural habitats through intensive land uses including agriculture and urbanization. Identifying land use drivers of tributary nutrient concentrations and describing the magnitude and direction of their relationship are critical activities to improvement management of water quality in basins draining into the Great Lakes. The overarching goal of my thesis was to quantify the cumulative influence of spatial patterns in land use and land cover on variation of nutrient concentrations in tributaries of the Great Lakes. Biweekly water chemistry samples were collected in 29 streams located in southern Ontario between May and November, 2012. Agriculture, urbanization and the population served per km2 by a municipal sewage treatment plant were quantified for each stream at multiple spatial scales. Ordinary least squares regression analysis models identified relationships between nutrient parameters (NO3-+NO2-, NH3, TKN, TN, SRP, TDP, and TP) and land use descriptors. Significant associations were identified for all nutrient parameters with the exception of TDP. NO3-+NO2- was driven by a combination of urban and agriculture land use in the catchment. NH3, TKN, and SRP were related to agriculture and sewage treatment plants (STPs). TN and TP were only associated with STP population served per km2. Model predictive performance was evaluated under three scenarios; data comparability, spatial robustness and temporal robustness (dry, moderate and wet climate scenarios). Overall, assessment of model performance indicated that data sampling and collection protocol may limit prediction accuracy. My results show that human activities are significant drivers of stream nutrient concentrations and that nitrogen forms can be predicted, on average, in70% of evaluation streams under most scenarios. My findings demonstrate the utility of land use as a predictive tool for managing stream nutrient concentrations. The nitrogen models generated in my study could be used to enable planners and managers to better understand the potential implications of future land management decisions on water quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".