SWAT developments and recommendations for modelling agricultural pesticide mitigation measures in river basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pesticides are useful for agriculture because of their ability to protect crops against pests. At the same time, excessive loading of pesticides in water bodies can produce toxic conditions that harm sensitive aquatic species, and render the water unfit for human consumption. Therefore, measures need to be designed, evaluated and undertaken in order to reduce pesticide pollution. In this study we focus on the Nil catchment, a small basin situated in the centre of Belgium. The necessary database and a watershed model (Soil and Water Assessment Tool—SWAT) were available to simulate different agricultural management scenarios. In order to make the model accurately predict pesticide loading to the river and instream transport, it was necessary to make several modifications to the source code. Special attention was given to implement an estimator for point losses (e.g. cleaning of spray equipment) and droplet drift, and improve the representation of physical processes in filter strips. The closing of mass balances is also described. Once the model was modified and calibrated, it could be used to simulate the pesticide mitigation strategies and evaluate their effectiveness. The simulation results revealed that strip-cropping seems to be more efficient than the sowing of cover crops, contour farming, the construction of filter strips, a 40% reduction of point losses and finally conservation agriculture. Several recommendations are given for further improvement of SWAT for management use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".