MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414459445 · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02594-6

Effects of climate change on river and groundwater nutrient inputs to the coastal ocean

2025· article· en· W4414459445 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Richardson, Bernhard Peucker‐Ehrenbrink, Shea N. Wyatt, Annie Bourbonnais, Vanessa Hatje, Claudia Frey, Tina Sanders, Diana E. Varela, Adina Paytan

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersInternational Atomic Energy AgencyGobierno del Principado de Asturias
KeywordsClimate changeNutrientGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)AquiferCryospherePrecipitationGlobal warmingEffects of global warming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rivers and groundwater are major sources of nutrients to the global coastal ocean. Climate change is expected to impact nutrient fluxes from river basins and coastal aquifers through alterations to both hydrological and nutrient cycling processes. In this Review, we identify and summarize how climate change impacts, such as changes in precipitation, increased cryosphere melt, and sea level rise, will affect water discharge and nutrient concentrations in rivers and coastal groundwater, which ultimately control nutrient inputs to the coastal ocean. We also document key limitations in the current understanding of climate-related changes to nutrient fluxes, especially in coastal groundwater basins. The impacts of climate change will interact with local human impacts, highlighting the need for studies spanning local to global scales to better understand and improve predictions of future nutrient fluxes from these hydrological pathways. Nutrient fluxes from rivers and groundwater flowing into the ocean are impacted by climate change impacts such as precipitation changes, cryosphere melt, and sea level rise.

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)0.000
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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207