Modelling of wildfire impacts on catchment hydrology applied to two case studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We used a conceptual modelling approach on two western Canadian mountainous catchments that were burned in separate wildfires in 2003 to explore the potential of using modelling approaches to generalize post‐wildfire catchment hydrology in cases where pre‐wildfire hydrologic data were present or absent. The Fishtrap Creek case study (McLure fire, British Columbia) had a single gauged catchment with both pre‐fire and post‐fire data, whereas the Lost Creek case study (Lost Ck. fire, Alberta) had several instrumented burned and reference catchments providing streamflows and climate data only for the post‐wildfire period. Wildfire impacts on catchment hydrology were assessed by comparing pre‐wildfire and post‐wildfire model calibrated parameter sets for Fishtrap Creek (Fishtrap Ck.) and the calibrated parameters of two burned (South York Ck. and Lynx Ck.) and two unburned (Star Ck. and North York Ck.) catchments for Lost Ck. Model predicted streamflows for burned catchments were compared with unburned catchments (pre‐fire in the case of Fishtrap Ck. and unburned in the case of the Lost Ck.). Similarly, model predicted streamflows from unburned catchments were compared with burned catchments (post‐fire in the case of Fishtrap Ck. and burned in the case of the Lost Ck.). For Fishtrap Ck., different model parameters and streamflow behaviour were observed for pre‐wildfire and post‐wildfire conditions. However, the burned and unburned model results from the Lost Ck. wildfire did not show differing streamflow responses to the wildfire. We found that this hydrological modelling approach is suitable where pre‐wildfire and post‐wildfire data are available but may provide limited additional insights where pre‐disturbance hydrologic data are unavailable. This may in part be because the conceptual modelling approach does not represent the physical catchment processes, whereas a physically based model may still provide insights into catchment hydrological response in these situations. Copyright © 2015 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".