Novel predictors related to hysteresis and baseflow improve predictions of watershed nutrient loads: An example from Ontario's lower Great Lakes basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eutrophication has re-emerged in the lower Great Lakes basin resulting in critical water quality issues. Models that accurately predict nutrient loading from streams are needed to inform appropriate nutrient management decisions. Generalized additive models (GAMs) that use surrogate data from sensors to predict nutrient loads offer an alternative to commonly applied linear regression and may better handle relationship non-linearities and skewed water quality data. Five years (2015–2020) of water quantity and quality data from 11 agricultural watersheds in southern Ontario were used to develop GAMs to predict total phosphorus (TP) and nitrate (NO 3 − ) loads. This study aimed to 1) use GAMs to predict nutrient loads using both common and novel predictors and 2) quantify and examine the variability in seasonal and annual nutrient loads. Along with routine surrogate model predictors (i.e., flow, turbidity, and seasonality), the addition of the baseflow proportion and the hydrograph position of flow observations improved model performance. Conversely, including the antecedent precipitation index minimally affected model performance, regardless of constituent. Seasonal and annual patterns in TP and NO 3 − load predictions mirrored that of the hydrologic regime. This study showed that parsimonious GAMs featuring novel model predictors can be used to predict nutrient loads while accounting for the partitioning of surface and subsurface flow paths and hysteresis between streamflow and water quality parameters that are frequently observed in a wide range of environments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".