Sediment phosphorus buffering in streams at baseflow: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phosphorus (P) pollution of surface waters remains a challenge for protecting and improving water quality. Central to the challenge is understanding what regulates P concentrations in streams. This quantitative review synthesizes the literature on a major control of P concentrations in streams at baseflow—the sediment P buffer—to better understand streamwater–sediment P interactions. We conducted a global meta‐analysis of sediment equilibrium phosphate concentrations at net zero sorption (EPC 0 ), which is the dissolved reactive P (DRP) concentration toward which sediments buffer solution DRP. Our analysis of 45 studies and >900 paired observations of DRP and EPC 0 showed that sediments often have potential to remove or release P to the streamwater (83% of observations), meaning that “equilibrium” between sediment and streamwater is rare. This potential for P exchange is moderated by sediment and stream characteristics, including sorption affinity, stream pH, exchangeable P concentration, and particle sizes. The potential for sediments to modify streamwater DRP concentrations is often not realized owing to other factors (e.g., hydrologic interactions). Sediment surface chemistry, hyporheic exchange, and biota can also influence the potential exchange of P between sediments and the streamwater. Methodological choices significantly influenced EPC 0 determination and thus the estimated potential for P exchange; we therefore discuss how to measure and report EPC 0 to best suit research objectives and aid in interstudy comparison. Our results enhance understanding of the sediment P buffer and inform how EPC 0 can be effectively applied to improve management of aquatic P pollution and eutrophication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".