Surface runoff and sub-surface drainage phosphorus losses under regular free drainage and controlled drainage with sub-irrigation systems in southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tan, C. S. and Zhang, T. Q. 2011. Surface runoff and sub-surface drainage phosphorus losses under regular free drainage and controlled drainage with sub-irrigation systems in Southern Ontario. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 349–359. Soil phosphorus (P) loss and its partition in various pathways may differ depending on water management practices. A study was conducted using large field plots equipped with automatic flow volume measurement and sampling systems over a 5-yr period to determine the effectiveness of regular free drainage (RFD) and controlled drainage with sub-irrigation (CDS) for mitigating soil P losses of various forms [dissolved reactive P (DRP), dissolved un-reactive P (DURP), and particulate P (PP)] and to identify the relative roles of surface runoff and sub-surface tile drainage in soil P loss. For RFD, flow weighted-means (FWM) of DRP, DURP, PP and the total P (TP) concentrations over the 5-yr period were averaged at 0.057, 0.057, 0.627, and 0.741mg P L−1 in surface runoff water and at 0.034, 0.053, 0.393, and 0.480 mg P L−1 in tile drainage water, respectively. CDS increased FWM of DRP, DURP and the TP concentrations in surface runoff water and DRP concentration in tile drainage, but decreased the FWM of DURP, PP and the TP concentrations in tile drainage water. The CDS produced similar annual total dissolved P (TDP) loss, the sum of DRP and DURP, but reduced losses of PP by 15% and of TP by 12%, relative to RFD. The PP loss accounted for over 80% of TP loss for both CDS and RFD. Of the total soil P loss, from 3 to 5% was accounted for in surface runoff water, while from 95 to 97% was accounted for in tile drainage water, for RFD. For CDS, from 29 to 35% of the total soil P loss was in surface runoff water, while 65 to 71% was in tile drainage water. Subsurface tile drainage played a predominant role in soil P loss. CDS can be considered a beneficial management practice to reduce soil P loss under the similar climate and relatively flat field conditions in Southern Ontario.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".