MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2932641703 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b00177

Methane Emissions from Artificial Waterbodies Dominate the Carbon Footprint of Irrigation: A Study of Transitions in the Food–Energy–Water–Climate Nexus (Spain, 1900–2014)

2019· article· en· W2932641703 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eduardo Aguilera, Jaime Vila-Traver, Bridget R. Deemer, Juan Infante‐Amate, Gloria I. Guzmán

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasWater-energy nexusCarbon footprintIrrigationWater useClimate changeWater resourcesEnvironmental engineeringWater conservationWater resource managementEnvironmental protectionNexus (standard)EcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irrigation in the Mediterranean region has been used for millennia and has greatly expanded with industrialization. Irrigation is critical for climate change adaptation, but it is also an important source of greenhouse gas emissions. This study analyzes the carbon (C) footprint of irrigation in Spain, covering the complete historical process of mechanization. A 21-fold total, 6-fold area-based, and 4-fold product-based increase in the carbon footprint was observed during the 20th century, despite an increase in water use efficiency. CH4 emissions from waterbodies, which had not previously been considered in the C footprint of irrigation systems, dominated the emission budget during most of the analyzed period. Technologies to save water and tap new water resources greatly increased energy and infrastructure demand, while improvements in power generation efficiency had a limited influence on irrigation emissions. Electricity production from irrigation dams may contribute to climate change mitigation, but the amount produced in relation to that consumed in irrigation has greatly declined. High uncertainty in CH4 emission estimates from waterbodies stresses a need for more spatially resolved data and an improved empirical knowledge of the links between water quality, water level fluctuations, and emissions at the regional scale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesFrench-language works237,207