Quantifying streamflow change caused by forest disturbance at a large spatial scale: A single watershed study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climatic variability and forest disturbance are commonly recognized as two major drivers influencing streamflow change in large‐scale forested watersheds. The greatest challenge in evaluating quantitative hydrological effects of forest disturbance is the removal of climatic effect on hydrology. In this paper, a method was designed to quantify respective contributions of large‐scale forest disturbance and climatic variability on streamflow using the Willow River watershed (2860 km 2 ) located in the central part of British Columbia, Canada. Long‐term (>50 years) data on hydrology, climate, and timber harvesting history represented by equivalent clear‐cutting area (ECA) were available to discern climatic and forestry influences on streamflow by three steps. First, effective precipitation, an integrated climatic index, was generated by subtracting evapotranspiration from precipitation. Second, modified double mass curves were developed by plotting accumulated annual streamflow against annual effective precipitation, which presented a much clearer picture of the cumulative effects of forest disturbance on streamflow following removal of climatic influence. The average annual streamflow changes that were attributed to forest disturbances and climatic variability were then estimated to be +58.7 and −72.4 mm, respectively. The positive (increasing) and negative (decreasing) values in streamflow change indicated opposite change directions, which suggest an offsetting effect between forest disturbance and climatic variability in the study watershed. Finally, a multivariate Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model was generated to establish quantitative relationships between accumulated annual streamflow deviation attributed to forest disturbances and annual ECA. The model was then used to project streamflow change under various timber harvesting scenarios. The methodology can be effectively applied to any large‐scale single watershed where long‐term data (>50 years) are available.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".