MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480173966 · doi:10.1623/hysj.54.3.556

Runoff reduction by forest growth in Hiji River basin, Japan / Diminution de l'écoulement causée par la croissance forestière dans le bassin versant du Fleuve Hiji, Japon

2009· article· fr· W1480173966 on OpenAlexaff
Huaxia Yao, Michio HASHINO, Jun Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceWater balancePrecipitationHydrology (agriculture)WatershedForestryAridity indexDrainage basinGeographyEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest growth unfavourably reduces low flows and annual runoff in a basin in Japan.Annual precipitation and runoff of the watershed are summarized from observed daily rainfall and discharge, and annual evapotranspiration is estimated from the annual water balance.The water balance analysis shows obvious trends: reduced annual runoff and increased evapotranspiration over a 36-year period when forest growth increased the leaf area index.Between two periods, 1960Between two periods, -1969Between two periods, and 1983Between two periods, -1992, mean annual runoff decreased 11%, from 1258 to 1118 mm, due to a 37% increase in evapotranspiration (precipitation minus runoff) from 464 to 637 mm.This increase in evapotranspiration cannot be attributed to changed evaporative demand, based on climatic variability over the 36-year period of record.Flow duration curves show reduced flows in response to forest growth.In particular, they suggest stronger absolute changes for higher flows but stronger proportional changes for medium and lower flows.A distributed model is applied to simulate the influences of five scenarios based on a 30% change in leaf area index and 5% change in soil storage capacity.From the simulation results, canopy growth appears to contribute much more to flow reduction than changes in soil storage capacity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological Sciences JournalSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207