VRCRI
Explore the system

Regenerative Systems Atlas

Explore the connected wastewater-to-regeneration system.

Eighteen research domains, each with three subtopics, linked by explained relationships. The domains are an editorial taxonomy, not performance ratings of any utility. Relationships are original synthesis. Related sources are shown for context and do not prove a relationship.

Directory of domains

The same 18 domains as a list. Works without hover or the graph.

Domain K / Destination

Agricultural use

Agronomic value depends on soil, crop, water and the way a product is applied.

Subtopics

  • Soil and crop suitability. Site, crop, pH, salinity and existing nutrient status matter.
  • Controlled agronomic comparison. Use randomisation, nutrient-matched controls and independent measurement.
  • Application and livestock/food pathways. Trace actual rate, timing, exposure and food-chain constraints.

Where a decision here travels

Domains reached by following the selected relationship types, by number of steps. Structural reach only; it does not show material flow or size of effect.

Downstream

  1. 1 step:
  2. 2 steps: ;
  3. 3 steps: ;

Upstream

  1. 1 step: ; ;
  2. 2 steps: ; ;
  3. 3 steps: ; ; ;

Feedback loops through this domain (0)

No closed loop passes through this domain in the register.

Relationships (5)

  • Constraint

    Receiving soil and irrigation balance to Soil and crop suitability: Irrigation water chemistry must be included in receiving-soil assessment.

    Question raised: Which limits in D Recycled water narrow what K Agricultural use can do?

    Why connected? (R08)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    Which limits apply and what their values are depends on jurisdiction and site. No limit values are asserted.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.
    Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Constraint: Receiving soil and irrigation balance (domain D) to Soil and crop suitability (domain K).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Irrigation water chemistry and the soil's water and salt balance together may affect what soils and crops tolerate over time.
    3. Why it matters
    Suitable use depends on the combined soil and water system, not on the water alone.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Irrigation water quality. Downstream: Crop choice, soil management and application rates.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 3 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Soil response is site-specific and changes with management.
    7. What would settle it
    Soil survey and irrigation water analysis for the target site.
  • Evidence required

    Nutrient availability and release to Controlled agronomic comparison: Agronomic trials must separate total from available nutrient response.

    Question raised: What would have to be shown in I Nutrient recovery before a claim in K Agricultural use can be made?

    Why connected? (R20)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    What counts as sufficient evidence is set by the relevant regulator, scheme or study design. None is specified here.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Evidence required: Nutrient availability and release (domain I) to Controlled agronomic comparison (domain K).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Total nutrient content does not show how much is available to plants, so response needs to be tested against comparable controls.
    3. Why it matters
    It prevents benefit being inferred from nutrient totals.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Analysis of nutrient forms. Downstream: Trial design.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Response varies with soil, crop and season.
    7. What would settle it
    Replicated trials with controls on the target soils.
  • Constraint

    Batch testing and qualified use to Application and livestock/food pathways: Qualified product specification determines allowable application.

    Question raised: Which limits in J Product formulation and quality assurance narrow what K Agricultural use can do?

    Why connected? (R23)
    Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
    Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
    What remains uncertain
    Which limits apply and what their values are depends on jurisdiction and site. No limit values are asserted.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Constraint: Batch testing and qualified use (domain J) to Application and livestock/food pathways (domain K).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    A product is fit for an application only if testing and specification show it meets that application's requirements, including any livestock or food pathway.
    3. Why it matters
    Different applications carry different obligations.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Batch testing results and specification. Downstream: Where and how the product may be applied.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review; SRC-002 in the register may be relevant context. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Requirements differ by use and jurisdiction.
    7. What would settle it
    The applicable rules for the intended use, compared with batch test results.
  • Outcome

    Controlled agronomic comparison to Soil and water monitoring: Replicated trial measurements support later site-level outcome assessment.

    Question raised: What result in K Agricultural use is accounted for in M Long-term outcomes, and how would it be verified?

    Why connected? (R24)
    Basis: Research hypothesis requiring investigation
    Stated as a plausible connection that requires investigation. No source is registered as direct support.
    What remains uncertain
    Observed outcomes depend on trial design, site and time. None are asserted.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.
    Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Outcome: Controlled agronomic comparison (domain K) to Soil and water monitoring (domain M).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Hypothesis: replicated trial results might help define what monitoring an application site needs. This has not been demonstrated.
    3. Why it matters
    It could help target monitoring at what matters.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Trial design and results. Downstream: Monitoring programme design.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 3 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    A hypothesis. Trial results from one site may not transfer to another.
    7. What would settle it
    Trial outcomes and monitoring data from the same sites.
  • Feedback

    Application and livestock/food pathways to Cumulative contaminant tracking: Application and monitored accumulation alter future product suitability.

    Question raised: How should results in K Agricultural use revise earlier decisions in M Long-term outcomes?

    Why connected? (R25)
    Basis: Research hypothesis requiring investigation
    Stated as a plausible connection that requires investigation. No source is registered as direct support.
    What remains uncertain
    Whether the feedback occurs in practice, and how quickly, is not established.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.
    Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Feedback: Application and livestock/food pathways (domain K) to Cumulative contaminant tracking (domain M).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Hypothesis: repeated application might accumulate substances in soil, and tracking that accumulation would return information to decisions about continued suitability. This has not been demonstrated.
    3. Why it matters
    It bears on whether repeated use on the same land remains appropriate.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Application rates and history. Downstream: Future product suitability and application limits.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review; SRC-002 in the register may be relevant context. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    The feedback is meaningful only where repeated applications reach the same land and the substances can be measured. Accumulation is unproven here.
    7. What would settle it
    Soil measurements before and after repeated applications.

Claim status: Interpretation. This is original synthesis, not measured data or a performance rating.