ArticleScientific reports2022
Fingerprinting the spatial sources of fine-grained sediment deposited in the bed of the Mehran River, southern Iran.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate information on the sources of suspended sediment in riverine systems is essential to target mitigation. Accordingly, we applied a generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) framework for quantifying contributions from three sub-basin spatial sediment sources in the Mehran River catchment draining into the Persian Gulf, Hormozgan province, southern Iran. A total of 28 sediment samples were collected from the three sub-basin sources and six from the overall outlet. 43 geochemical elements (e.g., major, trace and rare earth elements) were measured in the samples. Four different combinations of statistical tests comprising: (1) traditional range test (TRT), Kruskal-Wallis (KW) H-test and stepwise discriminant function analysis (DFA) (TRT + KW + DFA); (2) traditional range test using mean values (RTM) and two additional tests (RTM + KW + DFA); (3) TRT + KW + PCA (principle component analysis), and; 4) RTM + KW + PCA, were used to the spatial sediment source discrimination. Tracer bi-plots were used as an additional step to assess the tracers selected in the different final composite signatures for source discrimination. The predictions of spatial source contributions generated by GLUE were assessed using statistical tests and virtual sample mixtures. On this basis, TRT + KW + DFA and RTM + KW + DFA yielded the best source discrimination and the tracers in these composite signatures were shown by the biplots to be broadly conservative during transportation from source to sink. Using these final two composite signatures, the estimated mean contributions for the western, central and eastern sub-basins, respectively, ranged between 10-60% (overall mean contribution 36%), 0.3-16% (overall mean contribution 6%) and 38-77% (overall mean contribution 58%). In comparison, the final tracers selected using TRT + KW + PCA generated respective corresponding contributions of 1-42% (overall mean 20%), 0.5-30% (overall mean 12%) and 55-84% (overall mean 68%) compared with 17-69% (overall mean 41%), 0.2-12% (overall mean 5%) and 29-76% (overall mean 54%) using the final tracers selected by RTM + KW + PCA. Based on the mean absolute fit (MAF; ≥ 95% for all target sediment samples) and goodness-of-fit (GOF; ≥ 99% for all samples), GLUE with the final tracers selected using TRT + KW + PCA performed slightly better than GLUE with the final signatures selected by the three other combinations of statistical tests. Based on the virtual mixture tests, however, predictions provided by GLUE with the final tracers selected using TRT + KW + DFA and RTM + KW + DFA (mean MAE = 11% and mean RMSE = 13%) performed marginally better than GLUE with RTM + KW + PCA (mean MAE = 14% and mean RMSE = 16%) and GLUE with TRT + KW + PCA (mean MAE = 17% and mean RMSE = 19%). The estimated source proportions can help watershed engineers plan the targeting of conservation programmes for soil and water resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.