MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407171251 · doi:10.1007/s10533-025-01209-8

Distribution, sources, and fate of nitrate in groundwater in agricultural areas of Southern Alberta, Canada

2025· article· en· W4407171251 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabel Plata, Pauline Humez, Leah M. Wilson, Michael Nightingale, Cynthia McClain, Bernhard Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeochemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsGroundwaterNitrateHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceDistribution (mathematics)AgricultureWater resource managementGeologyGeographyEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrate pollution frequently impacts groundwater quality, particularly in agricultural regions across the world, but identifying the sources of nitrate (NO3−) pollution remains challenging. The extensive use of nitrogen-containing fertilizers, surpassing crop requirements, and livestock management practices associated with the spreading of manure can lead to the accumulation and transport of NO3− into groundwater, potentially affecting drinking water sources. We investigated the occurrence and distribution of NO3− in groundwater in Southern Alberta, Canada, a region characterized by intensive crop cultivation and livestock industry. Over 3500 samples from a provincial-scale groundwater quality database, collated from multiple projects and sources, involving domestic wells, monitoring wells, and springs, coupled with newly obtained samples from monitoring wells provided comprehensive geochemical insights into groundwater quality. While stable isotope compositions of NO3− (δ15N and δ18O) were exclusively available for groundwater samples obtained from monitoring wells, the stable isotope data were instrumental in constraining NO3− sources and transformation processes within the aquifers of the study region. Among all samples, 49% (n = 1746) were associated with NO3− concentrations below the detection limits. Ten percent (n = 369) of all groundwater samples, including samples with concentrations below detection limits, exceed the Canadian drinking water maximum acceptable concentration of 10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (NO3−–N). Elevated NO3− concentrations (> 10 mg/L as NO3−–N) in groundwater were mainly detected at shallow depths (< 30 m) predominantly in aquifers in surficial sediments and less frequently in bedrock aquifers. Statistical correlations between aqueous geochemical parameters showed positive associations between concentrations of NO3−–N and both potassium (K+) and chloride (Cl−), indicating the influence of synthetic fertilizers on groundwater quality. In addition, isotope analyses of NO3− (δ15N and δ18O) revealed three NO3− sources in groundwater, including mineralization of soil organic nitrogen followed by nitrification in soils, nitrification of ammonium or urea-based synthetic fertilizers in soils, and manure. However, manure was identified as the dominant source of NO3− exceeding the maximum acceptable concentration in groundwater within agriculturally dominated areas. Additionally, this multifaceted approach helped identify denitrification in some groundwater samples, a process that plays a key role in reducing NO3− concentrations under favorable redox conditions in shallow aquifers. The methodological approach used in this study can be applied to other regions worldwide to identify NO3− sources and removal processes in contaminated aquifers, provided there are well networks in place to monitor groundwater quality and drinking water sources.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeochemistrySame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207