Comparison of sediment and water column nutrient processing rates in agricultural streams of contrasting buffer land use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Watershed nutrient management often focuses on actions that reduce the movement of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from agricultural lands into streams. One area of management focus is the buffer of land adjacent to streams. Wetlands and forests in this buffer can intercept and retain N and P from the landscape. In addition to directly intercepting agricultural nutrients, natural habitats in the buffer can alter stream geomorphology and influence the in‐stream processing and transformation of N and P to less labile and mobile forms. Here, we assess the influence of buffer land cover on in‐stream processing of N and P. We measured nutrient dynamics in the water column and sediments of agricultural streams in the Fox River and Duck Creek watersheds (WI, USA) during the growing season. In these streams, water column processing was low, possibly due to a lack of primary producers in the water column. Water column P processing was weakly associated with wetland land cover in the buffer, but buffer land cover had no clear effect on inorganic N processing. On the other hand, sediments were almost always a source of inorganic P and a sink for inorganic N. Sediment P release was higher in streams with more agricultural land cover in the buffer. Sediments in streams with agricultural land cover in the buffer also removed more nitrate, even after accounting for the greater availability of nitrate in those streams. The buffer land cover conditions we quantified occupy a very small portion of the overall watershed (100 m wide, for 1 km upstream of the study site) but nevertheless appear to influence in‐stream cycling of N and P. For P management, reducing agricultural land cover in buffers is already a priority due to the ability of wetlands and forests to intercept nutrients, but this study suggests there may be some additional benefit due to changes in in‐stream P processing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".