Relationship between Large Woody Debris Characteristics and Pool Formation in Small Coastal British Columbia Streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The characteristics and function of large woody debris (LWD) were measured in 41 small (1.2-11.2-m bank-full channel width), fish-bearing streams in coastal British Columbia to determine how total LWD abundance and the features of individual LWD pieces (diameter, length, orientation, and presence of a rootwad) influenced the effectiveness of pool formation. Pool spacing (the number of channel widths between channel-spanning pools) was a decreasing power function of total LWD abundance, but the relationship was relatively weak. Stratification of sites by channel gradient improved the model fit, steeper streams (≥2% gradient) having a significantly lower pool spacing than lower-gradient streams (<2%). The proportion of LWD that formed pools increased from 6% for pieces with a diameter of 15-30 cm to 43% for pieces with a diameter of more than 60 cm. Large woody debris more than 60 cm in diameter formed a higher proportion of pools across all channel widths. A simple, size-structured model of LWD abundance in small streams suggests that loss of LWD larger than 60 cm in diameter will greatly decrease pool frequency across all channel widths but have the greatest impact on large streams. Models that estimate pool frequency based on total LWD abundance irrespective of size distribution may underestimate the impact of riparian management that reduces the number of larger-diameter trees recruiting to the stream channel.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".