MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401536614 · doi:10.3390/w16162287

Assessing the Impact of Anthropogenically Modified Land Uses on Wetland Health: Case of Witbank Dam Catchment in South Africa

2024· article· en· W4401536614 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi, Chengetanai Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, Luxon Nhamo

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
FundersWater Research Commission
KeywordsWetlandSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Water qualityDrainage basinWater resource managementPollutionPollutantNonpoint source pollutionLand useGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetlands are critical ecological infrastructures that improve water quality, serve as habitat for fish and other aquatic life, accumulate floodwaters, and maintain surface water flow during dry periods. However, the health of wetlands has been compromised by anthropogenic activities that affect the constant supply of ecosystem services. This study assessed the impact of anthropogenically modified land use on wetland health in the Witbank Dam Catchment in South Africa, whose land use has been severely modified for agriculture and mining purposes. The study developed a model linking surface runoff generated in the catchment with land use and wetland typology to comprehend diffuse pollution from pollution-source land uses. Runoff data and related wetland spatial information were processed and analysed in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to estimate pollutants (agricultural nutrients and acid mine drainage) from runoff detained and released by wetlands. The analysis facilitated the assessment of the value of wetlands in enhancing water quality, as well as human and environmental health. The runoff volume from pollution-source land uses (urban areas, farmlands, and mining) was used to evaluate annual pollution levels. Wetland types are ranked according to their efficiency levels to filter pollutants. The assumption is that the difference between filtered and unfiltered runoff is the quantity of polluted runoff water discharged into the river system. The analysis has shown that 85% of polluted runoff generated in the catchment ends up in the river system. An important observation is that although wetlands have a substantial ability to absorb excess pollutants, they have finite boundaries. Once they reach their full holding capacity, they can no longer absorb any further pollutants. The excess is discharged into the river system, risking human and environmental health. This explains why the Limpopo River is heavily polluted resulting in the death of fish, crocodiles and other aquatic life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207