Empirical and physical modelling of soil erosion in agricultural hillslopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil erosion is a complex and highly heterogeneous process with a wide range of environmental and economic impacts. Its estimation is particularly challenging and modelling is typically used for erosion estimation over large areas. The aim of this study was to compare the two leading empirical and physical erosion estimation models, i.e. the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). The models were calibrated and validated using data collected from field experiments conducted in agricultural lands of Mexico. The simulated rainfall experiments involved measuring erosion from field plots subjected to four tillage systems (No crop, Conventional tillage, Conventional tillage + residues, and Handspike) under two antecedent soil moisture conditions (dry and wet). Different calibration approaches based on the factors K and C for RUSLE, and interrill erodibility and hydraulic conductivity in WEPP were tested. The best-performing methods in RUSLE involved measuring the K factor and adopting the recommended C factor by the National Forestry Commission of Mexico. In WEPP, the best results were obtained when interrill erodibility was estimated from experimental measurements. Overall, RUSLE outperformed WEPP in most of the treatments except for CT under WAMC.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".