Water Balances of Two Piedmont Headwater Catchments: Implications for Regional Hydrologic Landscape Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the Piedmont of North Carolina, a traditionally water‐rich region, reservoirs that serve over 1 million people are under increasing pressure due to naturally occurring droughts and increasing land development. Innovative development approaches aim to maintain hydrologic conditions of the undisturbed landscape, but are based on insufficient target information. This study uses the hydrologic landscape concept to evaluate reference hydrology in small headwater catchments surrounding Falls Lake, a reservoir serving Raleigh and the greater Triangle area. Researchers collected one year of detailed data on water balance components, including precipitation, evapotranspiration, streamflow, and shallow subsurface storage from two headwater catchments representative of two hydrologic landscapes defined by differences in soils and topographic characteristics. The two catchments are similar in size and lie within the same physiographic region, and during the study period they showed similar water balances of 26‐30% Q, −4 to 5% ΔS, 59‐65% evapotranspiration, and 9‐10% G. However, the steeper, more elevated catchment exhibited perennial streamflow and nongrowing season runoff ratios (Q/P) of 33%, whereas the flat, low‐lying stream was drier during the growing season and exhibited Q/P ratios of 52% during the nongrowing season. A hydrologic landscape defined by topography and soil characteristics helps characterize local‐scale reference hydrology and may contribute to better land management decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".