A Watershed‐scale Assessment of Cost‐Effectiveness of Sediment Abatement with Flow Diversion Terraces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil conservation beneficial management practices (BMPs) are effective at controlling soil loss from farmlands and minimizing water pollution in agricultural watersheds. However, costs associated with implementing and maintaining these practices are high and often deter farmers from using them. Consequently, it is necessary to conduct cost-benefit analysis of BMP implementation to assist decision-makers with planning to provide the greatest level of environmental protection with limited resources and funding. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to evaluate the efficacy of flow diversion terraces (FDT) in abating sediment yield at the outlet of Black Brook Watershed (BBW), northwestern New Brunswick. Different FDT-implementation scenarios were expressed as the ratio of land area protected by FDT to the total cultivated area. From this analysis, we found that average annual sediment yield decreased exponentially with increased FDT protection. When the proportion of FDT-protected areas was low, sediment reductions caused by FDT increased sharply with increasing use of FDT. Similarly, marginal sediment yield abatement costs (dollar per tonne of sediment reduction) increased exponentially with increasing proportion of FDT-protected area. The results indicated that increasing land protection with FDT from 6 to 50% would result in a reduction of about 2.1 tonne ha(-1) yr(-1) and costs of sediment reduction increased from $7 to $12 per tonne. Increasing FDT-protected cropland from 50 to 100%, a reduction of about 0.9 tonne of sediment ha(-1) yr(-1) would occur and the costs would increase from $12 to $53 per tonne of sediment yield reduction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".