Seeing the climate through the trees: observing climate and forestry impacts on streamflow using a 60‐year record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Paired watershed experiments involving the removal or manipulation of forest cover in one of the watersheds have been conducted for more than a century to quantify the impact of forestry operations on streamflow. Because climate variability is expected to be large, forestry treatment effects would be undetectable without the treatment–control comparison. New understanding of climate variability provides an opportunity to examine whether climate variability interacts with forestry treatments, in a predictable manner. Here, we use data from the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon, USA, to examine the impact of the El Niño‐Southern Oscillation on streamflow linked to forest harvesting. Our results show that the contrast between El Niño and La Niña events is so large that, whatever the state of the treated watershed in terms of regrowth of the forest canopy, extreme climatic variability related to El Niño‐Southern Oscillation remains the more dominant driver of streamflow response at this location. Improvements in forecasting interannual variation in climate might be used to minimize the impact of forestry treatments on streamflow by avoiding initial operations in La Niña years. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 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".