Solute dynamics and the Ontario nitrogen index: I. Chloride leaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nitrogen (N) index for humid temperate southern Ontario, Canada (Ontario N index) incorporates previous and current crop type, fertilizer and (or) manure management, and hydrologic soil group (HSG) to estimate risk for contamination of tile drainage water and groundwater by nitrate leached below the primary crop root zone (top 60 cm of soil). The Ontario N index has received limited ground-truthing, and the leaching component was assessed using chloride tracer (Cl TR ) on five soils (one sandy loam, two loams, and two clay loams) representing four HSG-based risk levels (HSG-A, high risk; HSG-B, medium risk; HSG-C, low risk; HSG-D, very low risk). A square-wave pulse of Cl TR was applied to the soil surfaces in fall 2007 as KCl, and movement and loss of Cl TR was tracked over 1–1.2 years using monthly soil core samples collected from the top 60–80 cm. For all five soils, 60–96% of Cl TR was leached out of the primary crop root zone (below 60 cm depth) during the noncropping period (October 2007 to March 2008 inclusive), and >80% was leached out of the root zone within 1 year. The percentage of Cl TR that leached did not correlate with precipitation or HSG designation, but produced significant (P < 0.05) power function regressions with minimum and harmonic mean saturated soil hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) measured in the top 50–60 cm. Cl TR leaching rate appeared to be controlled primarily by K sat in a manner consistent with infiltration and solute transport theory. It was consequently proposed that solute leaching loss versus K sat relationships may improve N index risk estimates for both southern Ontario and other humid temperate regions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".