Predicting atrazine concentrations in waterbodies across the contiguous United States: The importance of land use, hydrology, and water physicochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Atrazine contamination is ubiquitous in North American surface waters, but the dependency of the herbicide's distribution on landscape and within‐lake processes is currently poorly known. We sought to identify novel predictors of atrazine and to build a coherent framework to model its concentration in waterbodies through the development of binomial‐gamma hurdle models and LASSO regression models. We constructed models for over 900 waterbodies in the contiguous United States using data from the 2012 U.S. EPA National Lake Assessment, the 2012 U.S. Department of Agriculture CropScape and the Global HydroLAB HydroLAKES databases. Atrazine was detected in 32% of U.S. waterbodies, with a mean concentration of 0.17 μg L−1when detected. The two‐part hurdle model explained as much as 75% of the variance in atrazine across a spatially and temporally heterogeneous landscape. Three predictors explained 31% of the variability in atrazine detection in U.S. waterbodies, where the proportion of corn + soy cultures in the watershed was the most important variable. Once atrazine was detected, our models explained an additional 29% of the variability in atrazine concentrations, where the estimated areal weight of atrazine application (kg atrazine km2) in the watershed was the most important predictor. Spatially, water quality variables associated with eutrophication were linked to increased levels of atrazine contamination while cooler water temperatures and natural lakes and landscapes were associated with decreased levels of contamination. Our results suggest that changes in land‐use practices may be the most effective way to mitigate atrazine contamination in waterbodies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".