Buffer zone and windbreak effects on spray drift deposition in a simulated wetland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount of agricultural spray that drifts into a wetland from an adjacent crop field is influenced by vegetation along the field boundary or any intentional setback distance (buffer zone) between the sprayer and the edge of the arable field. In this study, spray tracer drift deposits were measured in a simulated wetland area under different conditions of wind speed and buffer zone width. The effect of an artificial windbreak at the upwind edge of the simulated wetland was also evaluated. A level of tolerance of 0.1% of the in-swath spray deposition was established as a no-effect level for the response of aquatic plants to common herbicides. Our results indicate that a vegetated 10-m field margin (eg a fencerow) alone provides adequate protection from herbicide drift into a wetland area under wind conditions normally considered acceptable for spraying. For high winds (> 4m s(-1)) when field spraying would not normally be advised, adequate protection was afforded by the same 10-m margin plus a dense windbreak (25% porosity) or by the margin plus a 20-m buffer zone.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".