MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1907626942 · doi:10.4141/cjss09086

Surface runoff and sub-surface drainage phosphorus losses under regular free drainage and controlled drainage with sub-irrigation systems in southern Ontario

2011· article· en· W1907626942 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTile drainageDrainageSurface runoffHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceIrrigationSurface waterPhosphorusSoil waterWatertable controlChemistrySoil scienceEnvironmental engineeringAgronomyGeologyEcologySoil salinityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it