Effect of land use on the water quality of neotropical streams at multiple spatial scales.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased human activities are threatening watershed landscapes and water quality monitoring and multiscale analysis have become essential tools for water resource management. In order to evaluate the influence of land use on water quality at different spatial scales. Twelve low-order streams were selected in which limnological samplings (physical, chemical and biological) were carried out during the dry season. The water quality index was used, based on the quality standards of Canada and Brazil. The percentage of land use was measured at local scale and water network. The environmental variables were summarized through Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and subsequently used in the construction of Linear Models (lm) for each axis resulting from the PCA, using the percentage of land use classes and land slope. The presence of contamination by Lead, Chromium, Copper, Nitrogen and Escherichia coli was verified. It was found that the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CWQG-PAL) were more effective in protecting aquatic ecosystems than the National Council for the Environment Resolution No. 357/2005 (CONAMA 357/2005), due to its constant, more rigorous and sensitive monitoring. Agricultural activities and those inherent to urban areas were the main responsible for the degradation of water quality. The negative impact of agriculture was observed both on a local scale and on the water network, while urban areas had a negative effect only on the water network scale. It was also found that forests on a local scale are associated with improved water quality. It emphasizes the importance of the multiscale approach in the management of watersheds and in public policies, which should consider not only forest preservation on a local scale, but also human activities throughout the watershed. It is recommended the need for a reformulation of CONAMA Resolution No. 357/2005 with a methodology applied to conservationism and holistic, as well as the importance of public policies and changes in the law of the Brazilian Forest Code on areas of permanent preservation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".