MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2941175483 · doi:10.14288/1.0366160

Restoring a Salmon Spawning Stream to the Jericho Watershed

2018· article· en· W2941175483 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucy Li, L. Stewart, Daixuan Yuan, Chris Wen

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueFish Ecology and Management Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWatershedFisheryEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Jericho Lands is a 21-hectare plot of land located in the West Point Grey neighbourhood of Vancouver. It is directly upslope of Jericho Park, which itself has significant ecological and recreational value to the community. Jericho Lands is currently planned to undergo redevelopment in the coming years by the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations and is currently in the research, planning, and consulting stage. This redevelopment could make it possible to restore salmon-spawning streams that once existed in the area. The aim of this project is to explore the possibility of re-introducing salmon to Jericho Park. The main objectives of our project are to explore the characteristics of Jericho Park using GIS software, explore water sources, propose potential locations for possible holding ponds, and propose possible stream routes for these holding ponds. Chum were determined to be the best species for reintroduction at the park based on a meeting that we had with Scott Hinch, an aquatic ecologist at UBC. The criteria for streamflow was based on the biological needs of salmon. The amount of water needed to sustain a healthy salmon stream was determined to be 40 L/s or 0.04 m³/s (1.5 m wide, 0.13 m deep, flowing at 0.20 m/s). This streamflow would be needed from November to the end of April. In other months (May through October), we set a target streamflow (0.00039 m³/s to 0.0027 m³/s) to mitigate potential evapotranspiration in order to keep the channel wet, but not necessarily flowing. There are currently two watersheds contributing to Jericho Park, which provide two possibilities for stream channel locations. The western watershed is 230 ha and eastern is 264 ha. Both have 62% impervious cover (including roads, roofs, etc.). Because of the urban nature of the system, streamflow is likely to rely on storm sewers and streamflow might be very flashy (i.e., short floods followed by periods of very low flow). An analysis of surface water was carried out to estimate potential streamflow. This was done using water balance equations with weather parameters from 2016, parameters obtained from literature, municipal databases, and GIS software. Weather data from 2016 was used for water balance equations. Stormwater would be the main water source for the stream. However, not all watersheds could reach the target flow rate (0.04 m³/s). The average streamflow from November to April would be 0.05 m³/s in the eastern watershed, which is greater than the target flow rate. Meanwhile, the western watershed only has average streamflow of 0.024 m³/s during this period. Holding ponds could be used to help prevent the flashiness of a stream and store water for use in April, but a holding pond would have to be enormous (103680 m³, the size of a football field 19 m deep) to give 0.04 m³/s of water for one month. HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) systems could produce 14 to 46 L/day/1000 ft² during the summer. This would be enough, given a reasonable number of newly developed buildings in Jericho Lands, to mitigate evapotranspiration in the stream channel, and help mitigate water losses from evaporation and plant uptake in the channel and the existing ponds in Jericho Park. However, it would not be of use for the spawning season as there would be no Chum in the stream throughout the summer. We have proposed two possible locations of holding ponds as well as the resulting stream that would be constructed at each possible location shown in Figures 9 and 10, section 3.5. The holding pond proposed in Figure 9 could be possible with sufficient groundwater pumping, although dry seasons could be a problem. However, the holding pond proposed in Figure 10 would provide enough water during a dry season due to its water input mainly sourced from the eastern stormwater catchment.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,939
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,121

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0020,000
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,169
Écart entre enseignants0,161 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetFish Ecology and Management Studies→Travaux en français237 207→