Influence of stream bank seepage during low‐flow conditions on riparian zone hydrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effect of sustained stream bank seepage during base flow conditions on the hydrology of two riparian zones in lowland agricultural areas in southern Ontario, Canada. Hydrometric data and subsurface chloride patterns over a 2‐year period indicated that stream inflow to the riparian zone sustained a reversed water table gradient inland for periods of up to 4 months in summer and autumn at one of the riparian sites. Stream bank seepage occurred throughout the year at the second riparian site where hillslope inflow was restricted by an upslope spur. Despite high evapotranspiration rates in summer, stream inflow maintained a zone of saturated riparian sediments that extended up to 25 m inland. A bromide tracer injection at the stream bank interface indicated that bank seepage occurred along preferential flow paths in a poorly sorted gravel layer at the two riparian sites. Conceptual models of humid temperate riparian zones have focused on hillslope to stream hydrologic flow paths. However, our results suggest that sustained stream bank inflow during low‐flow conditions can exert a dominant control on riparian hydrology in lowland landscapes where level riparian zones bounded by perennial streams receive limited subsurface inflows from adjacent slopes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".