Evaluation of BMPs in Flatland Watershed with Pumped Outlet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of existing and potential best management practices (BMPs) to cropped lands in the Jeannette Creek watershed (Thames River basin, Ontario, Canada) in reducing P loads at its pumped outlets was assessed using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). Existing BMPs consisted of banded, incorporated, and variable phosphorus (P)-rate application, conservation tillage, cover crops, and vegetative buffer strips. Potential BMPs consisted of banded P application, no-till, and a cover crop following winter wheat. Two separately delineated sub-watersheds, J1 and J2, characterized by a flat topography and distinct pumped outlets, were selected for analysis. Despite challenges in delineation, the SWAT model was successfully set up to assess the impact of BMPs in reducing P loads in these sub-watersheds. Each BMP was systematically removed, and the resulting simulated P loads were compared with the baseline scenario. Compared to cover crops or vegetative buffer strips, the implementation of conservation tillage and no-till, along with altering the mode of P application, offered superior effectiveness in reducing the P load. On average, the annual reduction in total P (Ptot) loads under existing BMPs was 9.2% in J1 and 11.3% in J2, whereas, under potential BMPs, this reduction exceeded 60% in both watersheds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".