Grazing management effects on stream bank erosion and phosphorus delivery to a pasture stream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nellesen, S. L., Kovar, J. L., Haan, M. M. and Russell, J. R. 2011. Grazing management effects on stream bank erosion and phosphorus delivery to a pasture stream. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 385–395. Pasture lands may deliver significant sediment and phosphorus (P) to surface waters. To determine the effects of beef cattle (Bos taurus) grazing practices on stream bank erosion and P losses, three treatments [rotational stocking (RS), continuous stocking with restricted stream access (CSR), and continuous stocking with unrestricted stream access (CSU)] were established in six adjacent pastures along Willow Creek in central Iowa, USA. Erosion pins were used to record bank erosion and deposition monthly from May to November of 2005–2007. Soil samples were collected by horizon to estimate P losses. Net bank erosion/deposition and pin activity, calculated as an indicator of bank stability, differed among years and measurement periods within a given year more than among grazing management treatments. Trend analysis of the 3 yr of monthly erosion/deposition data revealed two RS pastures with decreasing bank erosion, suggesting some response to this grazing practice. Mean 3-yr P losses were lower in CSR pastures (5.0 g m−1 stream) than in RS (9.1 g m−1 stream) and CSU (12.2 g m−1 stream) pastures. Both sediment and P losses tended to occur during the winter and early part of the grazing season. In general, our results suggested that at this site bank erosion and P losses to the stream were controlled primarily by natural processes, rather than grazing management.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".