MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783769052 · doi:10.1002/esp.4339

Grazing impacts on gully dynamics indicate approaches for gully erosion control in northeast Australia

2018· article· en· W2783769052 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

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersDepartment of the Environment and Energy, Australian GovernmentMeat and Livestock AustraliaDepartment of Defence, Australian Government
KeywordsErosionHydrology (agriculture)Drainage basinGully erosionSurface runoffSedimentRavineRangelandAridVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceGeologyGrazingDeposition (geology)GeomorphologyEcologyGeographyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drainage network extension in semi‐arid rangelands has contributed to a large increase in the amount of fine sediment delivered to the coastal lagoon of the Great Barrier Reef, but gully erosion rates and dynamics are poorly understood. This study monitored annual erosion, deposition and vegetation cover in six gullies for 13 years, in granite‐derived soils of the tropical Burdekin River basin. We also monitored a further 11 gullies in three nearby catchments for 4 years to investigate the effects of grazing intensity. Under livestock grazing, the long‐term fine sediment yield from the planform area of gullies was 6.1 t ha ‐1 yr ‐1 . This was 7.3 times the catchment sediment yield, indicating that gullies were erosion hotspots within the catchment. It was estimated that gully erosion supplied between 29 and 44% of catchment sediment yield from 4.5% of catchment area, of which 85% was derived from gully wall erosion. Under long‐term livestock exclusion gully sediment yields were 77% lower than those of grazed gullies due to smaller gully extent, and lower erosion rates especially on gully walls. Gully wall erosion will continue to be a major landscape sediment source that is sensitive to grazing pressure, long after gully length and depth have stabilised. Wall erosion was generally lower at higher levels of wall vegetation cover, suggesting that yield could be reduced by increasing cover. Annual variations in gully head erosion and net sediment yield were strongly dependent on annual rainfall and runoff, suggesting that sediment yield would also be reduced if surface runoff could be reduced. Deposition occurred in the downstream valley segments of most gullies. This study concludes that reducing livestock grazing pressure within and around gullies in hillslope drainage lines is a primary method of gully erosion control, which could deliver substantial reductions in sediment yield. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.198 · 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