Machine learning models for prediction of nutrient concentrations in surface water in an agricultural watershed
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction and quantification of nutrient concentrations in surface water has gained substantial attention during recent decades because excess nutrients released from agricultural and urban watersheds can significantly deteriorate surface water quality. Machine learning (ML) models are considered an effective tool for better understanding and characterization of nutrient release from agricultural fields to surface water. However, to date, no systematic investigations have examined the implementation of different classification and regression ML models in agricultural settings to predict nutrient concentrations in surface water using a group of input variables including climatological (e.g., precipitation), hydrological (e.g., stream flow) and field characteristics (i.e., land and crop use). In the current study, multiple classification (e.g., decision trees) and regression (e.g., regression trees) ML models were applied on a dataset pertaining to surface water quality in an agricultural watershed in southern Ontario, Canada (i.e., Upper Parkhill watershed). The target variables of these models were the nutrient concentrations in surface water including nitrate, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, and total dissolved phosphorus. These target variables were predicted using physical and chemical water parameters of surface water (e.g., temperature and DO), climatological, hydrological, and field conditions as the input variables. The performance of these different models was assessed using various evaluation metrics such as classification accuracy (CA) and coefficient of determination (R 2 ) for classification and regression models, respectively. In general, both the ensemble bagged trees and logistic regression (CA ≥ 0.72), and exponential Gaussian process regression (R 2 ≥ 0.93) models were the optimal classification and regression ML algorithms, respectively, where they resulted in the highest prediction accuracy of the target variables. The insights and outcomes of the current study demonstrates that ML models can be employed to effectively predict and quantify the nutrient concentrations in surface waters to supplement field-collected monitoring data in agricultural watersheds, assisting in maintaining high quality of the available surface water resources. • Machine learning models were employed on a data from an agricultural watershed. • Target variables were nutrient concentrations in stream water in the watershed. • Ensemble bagged trees was the optimal classification model for the target variables. • Exponential Gaussian process regression accurately predicted nutrient concentrations. • Model results can be used for predicting nutrient concentrations in stream water.
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.
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 it