Modeling of phosphorus loss from field to watershed: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphorus (P) losses from nonpoint sources into surface water resources through surface runoff and tile drainage play a significant role in eutrophication. Accordingly, the number of studies involving the modeling of agricultural P losses, the uncertainties of such models, and the best management practices (BMPs) supported by the modeling of hypothetical P loss reduction scenarios has increased significantly around the world. Many improvements have been made to these models: separate manure P pools, variable source areas allowing the determination of critical source areas of P loss, analyses of modeling uncertainties, and understanding of legacy P. However, several elements are still missing or have yet to be sufficiently addressed: the incorporation of preferential flow into models, the modification of P sorption-desorption processes considering recent research data (e.g., pedotransfer functions for labile, active, or stable P, along with P sorption coefficients), BMP parameterization, and scale-up issues, as well as stakeholder-scientist and experimentalist-modeler interactions. The accuracy of P loss modeling can be improved by (a) incorporating dynamic P sorption-desorption processes and new P subroutines for direct P loss from manure, fertilizer, and dung, (b) modeling preferential flow, connectivity between field and adjacent water bodies, and P in-stream processes, (c) including an assessment of model uncertainty, (d) integrating field and watershed models for BMP calibration and scaling field results up to larger areas, and (e) building a holistic interaction between stakeholders, experimentalists, and modelers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".