MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050762933 · doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0178

Determining Phosphorus Release Rates to Runoff from Selected Alberta Soils Using Laboratory Rainfall Simulation

2006· article· en· W2050762933 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles R. Wright, Mohamed Amrani, Muhammad Akbar, D. J. Heaney, Douwe S. Vanderwel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaAgriculture Food and Rural Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceSoil waterPhosphorusHydrology (agriculture)EutrophicationLinear regressionTillageNutrientSoil scienceChemistryMathematicsGeologyAgronomyEcologyGeotechnical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phosphorus losses from agricultural land can cause accelerated eutrophication of surface water bodies. This study evaluated the use of soil test phosphorus (STP) levels to predict dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) concentrations in runoff water from agricultural soils using laboratory rainfall simulation. The objectives of this study were to determine (i) to what extent STP concentrations can be used as a basis to predict P losses from Alberta soils and (ii) how extended rainfall simulation run times affected DIP losses. Soil samples collected from a total of 38 field sites, widely scattered throughout the southern half of Alberta, were subjected to rainfall simulation in the laboratory. The STP concentrations were determined using Miller-Axley, Norwest, Kelowna, Modified Kelowna Mehlich-III, and distilled water extraction methods. Each rainfall simulation event lasted for at least 90 min. Runoff samples were collected in time series for the duration of each simulation, during two distinct runoff intervals: (i) for the first 30 min of continuous runoff (T30) and (ii) for 40 min during runoff equilibrium (Teq). For all the STP extractants and both runoff intervals, the relationship with DIP-flow-weighted mean concentration (FWMC) was linear and highly significant with r2 values ranging from 0.74 to 0.96. However, the slopes of the resulting regression lines were, on average, 1.85 times greater for the T30 runoff interval over those computed for the Teq interval. Thus experimental methodology greatly influenced regression parameters, suggesting that more work was needed to verify these relationships under natural conditions. In addition, with many of the r2 values greater than 0.90 there would be little, if any, benefit derived by including soil properties in regression analysis.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207