MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404524549 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123305

Machine learning models for prediction of nutrient concentrations in surface water in an agricultural watershed

2024· article· en· W4404524549 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Elsayed, Sarah Rixon, Jana Levison, Andrew Binns, Pradeep Goel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedAgricultureNutrientSurface waterEnvironmental scienceWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)Agricultural engineeringWater resource managementMachine learningEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental ManagementSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207