MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of contrasting buffer features within an agricultural landscape for reducing sediment and sediment‐associated phosphorus delivery to surface waters

2007· article· en· W2165527671 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Use and Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentBuffer stripHydrology (agriculture)Deposition (geology)ErosionTopsoilPhosphorusEnvironmental scienceSurface runoffGeologySoil waterEcologySoil scienceGeomorphologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are a variety of buffering features within the landscape that can be used to trap sediment and associated contaminants such as phosphorus (P), thereby helping to reduce sediment and P delivery to watercourses. Astroturf mats ( n = 136) were placed within contrasting buffer features at nine sites [mid‐field hedges (two sites), edge‐of‐field grass strips (six sites) and channel wetlands (one site)] within the River Parrett basin in England. Sediment was recorded on the mats at seven of the sites during the 18‐month sampling period. At the other two sites either there was insufficient erosion or sediment by‐passed the mats. At the seven sites where mats collected sediment, there was a considerable range in sediment deposition over the 18‐month sampling period with site‐average values (based on all mats at a site) ranging from 0.02 ± 0.06 to 1.15 ± 1.88 g cm −2 ; the average for all 136 mats was 0.41 ± 1.08 g cm −2 , or approximately 0.27 g cm −2 year −1 . Most of the sediment collected on the mats ( n = 60) was sand‐sized (>63 μm) material. The site‐average total‐P content of the <63 μm fraction of the deposited sediment ranged between 616 and 1938 mg kg −1 (average 890 mg kg −1 ). About half of all the mats that collected sediment were from the front of the buffers. Comparison of the sediment in the buffer features with topsoil from the contributing upslope fields suggests that the buffers trap coarser sediment with lower P concentrations, than the contributing topsoil. This suggests that the finer fraction, enriched in total‐P, may be passing through the buffers towards river channels. Comparison between sites indicates that sediment deposition within buffers is greater at sites with steeper slopes, erodible soils and certain types of land use, such as maize for silage, reflecting the greater soil erosion and sediment transfers in these fields. The location and careful design of buffer features is a key factor in their effectiveness.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · 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