MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W95580642 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2002.037

Water Table Management as a Natural Bioremediation Technique of Nitrate Pollution

2002· article· en· W95580642 on OpenAlexaff
Abdirashid Elmi, Chandra A. Madramootoo, Mohamud Egeh, Georges T. Dodds, Chantal Hamel

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater tableDrainageEnvironmental scienceNitrateHydrology (agriculture)FertilizerPollutionWater qualitySurface waterEnvironmental engineeringAgronomyGroundwaterChemistryEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3--N) pollution of water resources is a worldwide problem. Field trials were conducted from 1997 to 1998 to investigate the combined impacts of water table management (WTM) and N fertilization rate on soil NO3--N level and concentration of NO3--N in drainage water. Treatments consisted of two water table treatments: free drainage (FD) with open drains at a 1.0-m depth from the soil surface and subirrigation (SI) with a design water table of 0.6 m below the soil surface, and two N fertilizer rates: 200 kg N ha-1 (N200) and 120 kg N ha-1 (N120) in a split-plot design. Subirrigation reduced NO3--N concentration in the soil compared to FD by 37% in the spring of 1997 but not significantly (2%) in 1998; and 45% and 19% in the fall of 1997 and 1998, respectively. Higher rates of fertilization (N200) resulted in greater levels of NO3--N in the soil profile than the N120. Nitrate-N concentrations in drainage water from SI were 74% and 80% lower than those from FD in 1997 and 1998, respectively. Water table management can effectively reduce NO3--N pollution of water.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.276 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207