Uncertainty in phosphorus fluxes and budgets across the US long‐term agroecosystem research network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phosphorus (P) budgets can be useful tools for understanding nutrient cycling and quantifying the effectiveness of nutrient management planning and policies; however, uncertainties in agricultural nutrient budgets are not often quantitatively assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate uncertainty in P fluxes (fertilizer/manure application, atmospheric deposition, irrigation, crop removal, surface runoff, and leachate) and the propagation of these uncertainties to annual P budgets. Data from 56 cropping systems in the P‐FLUX database, which spans diverse rotations and landscapes across the United States and Canada, were evaluated. Results showed that across cropping systems, average annual P budget was 22.4 kg P ha−1 (range = −32.7 to 340.6 kg P ha−1), with an average uncertainty of 13.1 kg P ha−1 (range = 1.0–87.1 kg P ha−1). Fertilizer/manure application and crop removal were the largest P fluxes across cropping systems and, as a result, accounted for the largest fraction of uncertainty in annual budgets (61% and 37%, respectively). Remaining fluxes individually accounted for <2% of the budget uncertainty. Uncertainties were large enough that determining whether P was increasing, decreasing, or not changing was inconclusive in 39% of the budgets evaluated. Findings indicate that more careful and/or direct measurements of inputs, outputs, and stocks are needed. Recommendations for minimizing uncertainty in P budgets based on the results of the study were developed. Quantifying, communicating, and constraining uncertainty in budgets among production systems and multiple geographies is critical for engaging stakeholders, developing local and national strategies for P reduction, and informing policy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".