A new empirical model of sub-daily rainfall intensity and its application in a rangeland biophysical model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sub-daily rainfall intensity has a significant impact on runoff and erosion rates in northern Australian rangelands. However, it has been difficult to include sub-daily rainfall intensity in rangeland biophysical models using historical climate data due to the limited number of pluviograph stations with long-term records. In this paper a new empirical model (‘Temperature I15’ model) was developed to predict the daily maximum 15-min rainfall intensity (I15) using daily minimum and maximum temperature and daily rainfall totals from 12 selected pluviograph stations across Australia. The ‘Temperature I15’ model accounted for 46% (P < 0.01) of the variation in observed daily I15 for an independent validation dataset derived from 67 Australia-wide pluviograph stations and represented both geographical and seasonal variability in I15. The model also accounted for 70% (P < 0.01) of the variation in the observed historical trend in I15 for the full record period (average record period was 37 years) of 73 Australia-wide pluviograph stations. The ‘Temperature I15’ model was found to be an improvement on a past empirical model of I15 and can be easily implemented in biophysical models by using readily available daily climate data. However, as the ‘Temperature I15’ model only represented 46% of the variation in daily observed I15, the model is best used in simulation studies on ‘timeframes’ in excess of 5 years. The new ‘Temperature I15’ model was implemented in the runoff equation of the Australia-wide spatial pasture growth model AussieGRASS, which predicts daily water balance and pasture growth for 185 different pasture communities. This resulted in an improved simulation of green cover for 71% of pasture communities but was worse for 25% of communities, with no change for 4% of communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".