MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322154605 · doi:10.1016/j.catena.2023.107027

Weighted risk assessment of critical source areas for soil phosphorus losses through surface runoff mechanisms

2023· article· en· W4322154605 on OpenAlex
Emma Hayes, Suzanne Higgins, Josie Geris, Gillian Nicholl, Donal Mullan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCATENA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgri-Food and Biosciences InstituteQueen's UniversityNatural Environment Research CouncilQueen's University BelfastSight Research UK
KeywordsSurface runoffEnvironmental sciencePhosphorusHydrology (agriculture)Risk assessmentSoil scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Traditional bulked W soil sampling misses nutrient deficiencies and hotspots. • Gridded soil sampling reveals field-scale variability in soil phosphorus content. • Modelling surface runoff pathways analyses the risk of potential phosphorus losses. In intensive livestock areas, soils commonly contain elevated nutrients above the agronomic optimum which increases the risk of nutrient losses and contributing to poor ecological status waterbodies. Large within-field variability in soil nutrient content exists, and at-risk phosphorus (P) hotspots are rarely quantified due to sub-optimal soil sampling regimes. This study aims to address this issue by developing and evaluating an improved classification of P transfer risk at a sub-field scale through a weighted risk assessment model that combines gridded soil sampling data with modelled in-field surface runoff pathways. Within-field soil P variability was quantified at six field-scale sites in Northern Ireland using two different sampling techniques; traditional bulked field soil sampling (i.e. bulk analysis of W pattern sampling) and gridded sampling (at 35 m resolution) alongside interpolation. Results show that traditional bulked sampling failed to account for the sub-field scale spatial variability in soil P content. This may contribute to the poor chemical and ecological status of surface waters by frequently under-predicting soil nutrient content, and failing to identify potential contributing sources of soil P losses. In contrast, higher intensity gridded sampling and interpolation revealed wide in-field spatial variability in soil P content, facilitating the identification of contributing sources of P losses to poor water quality and aiding in the characterisation of risk for nutrient losses to waterways. Hydrological modelling of in-field runoff pathways indicated several P sources potentially contributing to runoff-based P losses. Our weighted risk assessment model was successful in identifying P hotspots and transfer potential to water courses, illustrating that a similar approach could be applied anywhere in the world where excess P poses a problem for water quality. Model validation took place using instream water quality sampling data, which showed that higher risk weighting model results correlated to poorer water quality conditions. This methodology could be a useful management tool to help countries meet their national water quality targets.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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