Soil controls of phosphorus in runoff: Management barriers and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kleinman, P. J. A., Sharpley, A. N., Budda, A. R., McDowell, R. W. and Allen, A. L. 2011. Soil controls of phosphorus in runoff: Management barriers and opportunities. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 329–338. The persistent problem of eutrophication, the biological enrichment of surface waters, has produced a vast literature on soil phosphorus (P) effects on runoff water quality. This paper considers the mechanisms controlling soil P transfers from agricultural soils to runoff waters, and the management of these transfers. Historical emphases on soil conservation and control of sediment delivery to surface waters have demonstrated that comprehensive strategies to mitigate sediment-bound P transfer can produce long-term water quality improvements at a watershed scale. Less responsive are dissolved P releases from soils that have historically received P applications in excess of crop requirements. While halting further P applications to such soils may prevent dissolved P losses from growing, the desorption of P from soils that is derived from historical inputs, termed here as “legacy P”, can persist for long periods of time. Articulating the role of legacy P in delaying the response of watersheds to remedial programs requires more work, delivering the difficult message that yesterday's sinks of P may be today's sources. Even legacy sources of P that occur in low concentration relative to agronomic requirement can support significant loads of P in runoff under the right hydrologic conditions. Strategies that take advantage of the capacity of soils to buffer dissolved P losses, such as periodic tillage to diminish severe vertical stratification of P in no-till soils, offer short-term solutions to mitigating P losses. In some cases, more aggressive strategies are required to mitigate both short-term and legacy P losses.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".