MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095159265 · doi:10.1139/er-2020-0071

Integrating watershed and ecosystem service models to assess best management practice efficiency: guidelines for Lake Erie managers and watershed modellers

2020· article· en· W3095159265 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carlos Alberto Arnillas, Cindy Yang, Sophia A. Zamaria, Alex Neumann, Aisha Javed, Yuko Shimoda, Natalie Feisthauer, Anna Crolla, Feifei Dong, Agnes Blukacz-Richards, Yerubandi R. Rao, D. Padrón Paredes, George B. Arhonditsis

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementBest practiceNonpoint source pollutionWatershed managementSoil and Water Assessment ToolEcosystem servicesSurface runoffAdaptive managementWater resource managementEcosystemEcologyComputer scienceDrainage basinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake Erie is the shallowest and most biologically productive system of the Great Lakes, surrounded by large urban, industrial, and agricultural areas. This combination prompted extensive efforts to promote best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate non-point source pollution in Lake Erie’s watershed. Recent technical and conceptual advancements caution that significant variability exists in the BMP efficiency to reduce the severity of runoff and nutrient concentrations due to differences in implementation, the dependence of operational performance on local soil and climatic conditions, storm events and seasonality, and declining performance over time owing to imperfect maintenance. Given the uncertainty surrounding the design and efficiency of BMPs in abating non-point source pollution, our primary objective is to review the critical strengths and potential weaknesses of nine agricultural BMPs promoted for use in the Lake Erie watershed. We examine the capacity of the current generation of watershed process-based models to recreate possible BMP-mediated changes in the water and nutrient cycles. After reviewing modelling strategies (dynamic, external forcing, and empirical) to recreate non-linear watershed responses and feedback loops to BMP efficiency, our study recommends adopting dynamic representations of the interplay among key mechanisms, like soil moisture, water table, nutrient availability, plant uptake, and subsequent growth. Notwithstanding the increased sophistication of complex mathematical models, their learning capacity is usually compromised by the coarse resolution of environmental data and limited empirical knowledge to accurately parameterize environmental properties and partially understood biogeochemical processes. Moreover, BMPs may differentially affect the provisions of an ecosystem (e.g., a BMP may amplify one ecosystem service while dampening another). In this context, we highlight the expression of the value of ecosystem services in monetary and non-monetary terms as a critical information piece when considering trade-offs among costly and diverse policy decisions. Our study also examines the degree to which different types of valuation methods, socioeconomic models, and data have been operationalized in Lake Erie. Consistent with the Integrated Watershed Management framework, we advocate the adoption of a rigorous mass-balance approach to assess the impact of BMPs on nutrient cycles, as well as the integration of the projected environmental improvements with terrestrial ecosystem services, beneficial use impairments, and aquatic ecosystem services. The proposed strategy has the potential to improve the decision-making process by identifying cost-effective management actions and balancing different goods and services provided by the agroecosystems at different time scales.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207