MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982119208 · doi:10.1002/hyp.5879

Sediment infiltration traps: their use to monitor salmonid spawning habitat in headwater tributaries of the Cascapédia River, Québec

2005· article· en· W1982119208 on OpenAlexaffabout
André Zimmermann, Michel Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfiltration (HVAC)RiffleHydrology (agriculture)SedimentEnvironmental scienceTributaryGeologySoil scienceHabitatGeomorphologyEcologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sediment infiltration can clog salmon nests and reduce egg survival. As a countermeasure, environmental managers often deploy infiltration traps to monitor sediment infiltration. Traps provide a repeatable means of measuring infiltration and enable comparisons to be made between sites. Results from infiltration rates measured with traps have also been used to estimate infilling rates into salmon nests. Application of these data is questionable, as the composition of the bed and the amount of fine sediment within the bed is known to affect infiltration rates. Thus, infiltration rates measured with infiltration traps may differ from the infiltration rates occurring in redd and riffle gravels. To examine how relationships between sediment infiltration rates varied between four watersheds, we continuously monitored suspended sediment transport, shear stress and infiltration rates at four sites over 5 months. We also compared infiltration rates measured with infiltration traps with changes in the hydraulic conductivity and subsurface grain size distribution of adjacent artificially constructed salmon nests and natural riffle gravels. Among the four watersheds, clear differences in sediment infiltration rates were observed. The differences correlated with the subsurface silt content but no strong relationship existed between land‐use or basin physiography/geology. Despite observing an average of 30 kg m −2 of sediment finer than 2 mm being deposited in the infiltration traps during the study, no change in redd or riffle substrate was observed. If the deposition rates measured with the traps reflect the processes in redds, enough sediment would have been deposited to inhibit egg emergence. However, no reduction in egg survival to the eyed stage was observed. In summary, our results show that infiltration traps with clean gravels can be used to detect intersite differences in sediment transport regimes. Extrapolations of sediment infiltration rates measured with such collectors to estimate infiltration rates in redds or riffles is, however, flawed. Copyright © 2005 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207