Identifying ice‐jam flooding events through the application of dendrogeomorphological methods
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In this research, we explore whether a dendrogeomorphological assessment of tree scarring can accurately summarize past ice‐jam flooding events occurring at a given reach of a river. A sample site was chosen with a history of ice‐jam flooding located in close proximity to a river gauge station. Samples were collected along a 200‐m stretch of riverbank to capture the variation in elevations and possible different ice‐jam flooding events. Disk samples were collected from trees with visual scarring evidence that indicated they had endured a past ice‐jam event. Tree cores from an adjacent stand were collected to create a master chronology for each of the sampled species. Tree disks and cores were analyzed under a microscope using a Velmex stage system, then visually and statistically crossdated using the program COFECHA. Based on the last year of tree growth, years of individual injury events were established. The years of injury event dates were compared against the years of highest instantaneous maximum water elevations from gauged river data. The two data sets correlated, as the years with the highest recorded injury event dates were also the years of highest instantaneous water level elevations. The most common years of injury event dates were directly reflected in the top 5 years of the highest river instantaneous water level elevations. In addition, the year of 2020 had the highest water elevations in the past 27 years, which was again reflected in the dendrogeomorphological data as the injury event year of 2020 was recorded on over 90% of the sampled tree disks. The correlation found between the gauged river data and the dendrogeomorphological data strongly suggests that past ice‐jam flooding event dates can accurately be determined through the analysis of trees in riverbank stretches that have been impacted by ice jams. The relationship of the gauged river data to the dendrogeomorphological data will therefore allow researchers to determine ice‐jam site histories in remote areas where no gauged data exist. The site histories can provide information such as the years or heights that past ice‐jam flooding occurred, which could then be used in ice‐jam flooding hazard assessments.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».