Key Components and Contrasts in the Nitrogen Budget Across a U.S.‐Canadian Transboundary Watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Watershed nitrogen (N) budgets provide insights into drivers and solutions for groundwater and surface water N contamination. We constructed a comprehensive N budget for the transboundary Nooksack River Watershed (British Columbia, Canada and Washington, US) using locally-derived data, national statistics and standard parameters. Feed imports for dairy (mainly in the US) and poultry (mainly in Canada) accounted for 30 and 29% of the total N input to the watershed, respectively. Synthetic fertilizer was the next largest source contributing 21% of inputs. Food imports for humans and pets together accounted for 9% of total inputs, lower than atmospheric deposition (10%). N imported by returning salmon representing marine derived nutrients accounted for <0.06 % of total N input. Quantified N export was 80% of total N input, driven by ammonia emission (32% of exports). Animal product export was the second largest output of N (31%) as milk and cattle in the US and poultry products in Canada. Riverine export of N was estimated at 28% of total N export. The commonly used crop nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) metric alone did not provide sufficient information on farming activities but in combination with other criteria such as farm-gate NUE may better represent management efficiency. Agriculture was the primary driver of N inputs to the environment as a result of its regional importance; the N budget information can inform management to minimize N losses. The N budget provides key information for stakeholders across sectors and borders to create environmentally and economically viable and effective solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".