Large variability of nitrate load estimated from sparse measurements by typical methods in Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems, primarily from agricultural sources, presents significant environmental challenges. At the land management decision level, reducing nitrate leaching requires knowledge of nitrate loading over time and location, the complexity of which is amplified by limited data availability, especially in poorly gauged watersheds. This issue is particularly pronounced in cold and humid regions where water quality data are often collected during the growing season only. Large data gaps result in systematic errors when estimating nitrogen load based on traditional regression methods. In this study, we explore the feasibility of using process-based hydrologic model to estimate nitrate loads from sparse temporal water quality data in a coastal agricultural watershed in Atlantic Canada and compared its performance with three regression methods. We found that the absence of the available 16% non-growing season data during the 10-year study period can lead to significant biases (as high as 21%) in load estimation by regression methods. In contrast, nitrate load estimates obtained with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) were less sensitive to systematic data gaps. The results suggest that process-based models like SWAT can be a viable alternative for nitrate load estimation when limited data is available. As agri-environmental water quality issues become more pressing, it is crucial to use appropriate methods based on data quality and availability to avoid misleading results.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".