MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174315796 · doi:10.4141/cjss2012-050

Evaluating the potential contribution of vegetation as a nutrient source in snowmelt runoff

2013· article· en· W2174315796 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
J. G. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowmeltNutrientEnvironmental scienceSurface runoffAgronomySoil waterLeaching (pedology)MoisturePhosphorusHydrology (agriculture)ChemistryEnvironmental chemistrySoil scienceEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elliott, J. 2013. Evaluating the potential contribution of vegetation as a nutrient source in snowmelt runoff. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 435–443. On the Canadian prairies, most nutrient transport to surface waters takes place during snowmelt. The potential for a range of 11 residue types to release nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and carbon (C) was assessed by snowmelt simulation. Interactions between soils and residues were measured for two contrasting residues. Samples (taken in late fall) were frozen prior to snowmelt simulations that consisted of three diurnal temperature cycles from −5°C to +9°C followed by a final melt at +5°C. Releases of total and total dissolved P (TP and TDP), total dissolved N (TDN), and dissolved organic C (DOC) during simulated snowmelt were greater from actively growing residues than from crop stubble and were significantly related to plant moisture and nutrient contents. Nutrient release from wheat stubble (WS) was statistically similar to that from the underlying surface soil but releases of P and ammonia (NH 3 ) from winter wheat (WW) were at least four times greater than for the corresponding soil. When combined samples of residue and soil were tested, releases of most nutrients were less than when the residue and soil were tested separately. Potential release of nutrients from vegetation is a factor for consideration in the design of practices to reduce nutrient transport.

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)0.002
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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations82
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207