MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396168338 · doi:10.1038/ncomms10571

Agriculture causes nitrate fertilization of remote alpine lakes

2016· article· en· W2396168338 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth J. Hundey, S. D. Russell, Fred J. Longstaffe, Katrina A. Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAquatic ecosystemEcosystemNitrateAgricultureReactive nitrogenNitrogen cycleWater qualitySnowEnvironmental protectionEcologyNitrogenEnvironmental chemistryGeographyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans have altered Earth's nitrogen cycle so dramatically that reactive nitrogen (Nr) has doubled. This has increased Nr in aquatic ecosystems, which can lead to reduced water quality and ecosystem health. Apportioning sources of Nr to specific ecosystems, however, continues to be challenging, despite this knowledge being critical for mitigation and protection of water resources. Here we use Δ(17)O, δ(18)O and δ(15)N from Uinta Mountain (Utah, USA) snow, inflow and lake nitrate in combination with a Bayesian-based stable isotope mixing model, to show that at least 70% of nitrates in aquatic systems are anthropogenic and arrive via the atmosphere. Moreover, agricultural activities, specifically nitrate- and ammonium-based fertilizer use, are contributing most (∼60%) Nr, and data from other North American alpine lakes suggest this is a widespread phenomenon. Our findings offer a pathway towards more effective mitigation, but point to challenges in balancing food production with protection of important water resources.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations76
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207