MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902750297 · doi:10.1002/fee.1985

The overlooked impact of rising glyphosate use on phosphorus loading in agricultural watersheds

2018· review· en· W2902750297 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Pier Hébert, Vincent Fugère, Andrew Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGDG Environnement
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGlyphosateEnvironmental sciencePesticideWatershedAgriculturePhosphorusAgronomyBiologyEcologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glyphosate is the most extensively used pesticide worldwide. In addition to raising ecotoxicological concerns, the use of glyphosate adds phosphorus (P) to agricultural landscapes, influencing the accumulation and cycling of P in soil and nearby surface waters. Yet pesticides have been largely ignored when monitoring anthropogenic sources of P in agricultural watersheds. Estimating the supply of P derived from glyphosate use, both globally and in the US alone, we show that trends have markedly increased over the past two decades. Across the US , mean inputs of glyphosate‐derived P increased from 1.6 kg P km −2 in 1993 to 9.4 kg P km −2 in 2014, with values frequently exceeding 20 kg P km −2 in areas planted with glyphosate‐resistant crops. Although still a minor source of P relative to fertilizers, P inputs from glyphosate use have now reached levels comparable to those from sources for which P regulations were initiated in the past. We thus argue for greater recognition of glyphosate's influence on P flow in watershed research and management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations150
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207