MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408126322 · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-57442-0

Coupling nitrogen removal and watershed management to improve global lake water quality

2025· article· en· W4408126322 on OpenAlexaff
Xing Yan, Yongqiu Xia, Xu Zhao, Chaopu Ti, Longlong Xia, Scott X. Chang, Xiaoyuan Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWatershedWater qualityCoupling (piping)NitrogenEnvironmental scienceWatershed managementQuality (philosophy)Environmental resource managementComputer scienceEcologyMaterials scienceChemistryBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lakes play a vital role in nitrogen (N) removal and water quality improvement, yet their efficiency varies due to differing watershed N input and lake characteristics, complicating management efforts. Here we established the N budget for 5768 global lakes using a remote sensing model. We found that watershed N input reduction and lake water quality improvement are nonlinearly related and depends on lake N removal efficiency. A 30% reduction in N loading in watersheds with high N removal efficiencies can improve cumulative water quality by over 70%. Stricter reduction could accelerate achieving water quality goal (≤1 mg N L–1), shortening the time by up to 30 years for most lakes. However, heavily polluted lakes with low N removal efficiencies (50 of 534 lakes with >1 mg N L–1) may not achieve the UN’s clean water SDG by 2030, even with a 100% N input reduction. Our research highlights the need for targeted N management strategies to improve global lake water quality.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207