MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408749406 · doi:10.1002/jeq2.70012

Effects of riparian grazing on distinct water‐extractable phosphorus sources

2025· article· en· W4408749406 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander J. Koiter, T. C. Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
FundersBrandon University
KeywordsRiparian zoneGrazingEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)PhosphorusLitterNutrientWater qualitySurface runoffAgronomyAnimal scienceHydrology (agriculture)EcologyChemistryBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Riparian areas play an important role in maintaining water quality in agricultural watersheds by buffering sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants. Recent studies have shown that in some cases riparian areas are a net source of phosphorus (P) in cold climates. This study assessed the impact of cattle grazing or harvesting of riparian areas on the spatial and vertical distribution of water‐extractable phosphorus (WEP). This study measured the WEP in four distinctive sources: biomass, litter, organic layer, and Ah horizon in three riparian locations extending from the edge of the waterbody to the field edge. In addition to a control, three treatments were examined: (1) grazing; (2) high‐density grazing; and (3) mowing. Prior to implementing the treatments, the Ah (0–10 cm) soil was the largest pool of WEP (42.5 mg m −2 , ∼44%); however, the biomass (i.e., standing vegetation) was a considerable proportion of the total (26.3 mg m −2 , ∼25%) WEP pool. The litter and organic layer had median WEP areal densities of 11.1 and 17.7 mg m −2 , respectively. Findings revealed significant reductions in biomass WEP with median reductions of 10.4 and 18.7 mg m −2 for high‐density grazing and mowing treatments, respectively. This reduction was more pronounced in the lower riparian locations where there was more biomass available to be grazed or mowed. There were no detectable changes in the other sources of WEP across all the treatments. Assessment of the control plots (pre‐ and post‐treatment) clearly indicates that there is considerable small‐scale spatial variability in P measurements in riparian areas. Overall, the results of this study suggest that management practices that target vegetation, including harvesting and short‐term autumn grazing, may be mechanisms to reduce the potential P loss during the snowmelt period. To fully assess the risk of P loss, studies investigating other important riparian processes that also have a demonstrated impact on P mobility, including freeze‐thaw cycles and flooding, are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207