Functional model of water balance variability at the catchment scale: 2. Elasticity of fast and slow runoff components to precipitation change in the continental United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the sensitivity of annual streamflow to precipitation is challenging due to the complexity of the processes that control the water balance. A low‐dimensional model can be useful to interrogate data in regional assessments of a large number of catchments, and can provide insights into the broad similarities and differences between catchments' behaviors. This work assesses the sensitivity to precipitation of total annual streamflow, as well as its slow and fast flow components, within the framework of the Ponce and Shetty water balance model. This framework assumes that there are upper limits on the ability of a catchment to store and evaporate water, and there are minimum threshold amounts of precipitation and wetting (precipitation minus fast flow) needed to initiate fast and slow runoff. The flow elasticities (percent of change in flow per percent of change in annual precipitation) were estimated for 405 catchments in the Model‐Parameter Estimation Experiment data set (including an assessment of parameter uncertainty). The elasticity of total discharge was 2.1 on average across the catchments, which is consistent with other studies. The fast component was higher (≈ 2.4) and slow flow was lower (≈ 2.0). Elasticities were highest and most variable in arid areas. The variations in elasticity between sites were shown to be primarily controlled by the two threshold parameters. The thresholds were a high proportion of mean annual precipitation in arid sites where only a small proportion of catchment wetting is released as slow flow. This provides some insight into previous observations that the sensitivity is correlated with climate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".