MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992635117 · doi:10.1061/40927(243)359

Upstream River Responses to Low-Head Dam Removal

2007· article· en· W1992635117 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. A. Amos, W. K. Annable

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDam removalNuclear decommissioningUpstream (networking)Hydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceErosionChannel (broadcasting)Upstream and downstream (DNA)SedimentGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Removal of low-head and mill pond dams throughout North America has garnered considerable attention over the past twenty years. Dam removal along watercourses is frequently being considered to address private and public liability regarding the failure of old and/or abandoned dams, removal of aquatic migration barriers and, to improve nutrient spiraling to enhance both downstream and upstream ecological diversity. A significant number of studies have been conducted over the past 50 years regarding the ecological impacts of dams, rates of reservoir sedimentation and, down stream erosion. Further, several more studies have examined and employed strategies for the decommissioning of dams, limiting downstream sediment deposition and improving fish migration. However, few studies have examined the upstream impacts of dam decommissioning beyond the backwater limits of reservoirs. This study examines the upstream effects of low-head dam decommissioning on channel morphology using the analog of existing failed dams by natural processes. The most drastic method of dam decommissioning is the "blow and go" approach, whereby a dam is removed and the watercourse is simply allowed to reassume a stable morphology (often assumed to be the pre-dam morphology). A series of low-head and mill pond dams were studied in southern Ontario which failed between 6 – 45 years before present and at locations where no upstream channel mitigation has taken place to provide an analog to the "blow and go" methodology. In each study reach, longitudinal profiles and cross-sectional field surveys were conducted from below the dam faces for several meander wave lengths upstream of each reservoir backwater limits. Numerical models were developed for the historical dam operational and current hydraulic conditions. Pavement samples were collected from riffles and headcuts within and above the reservoir regions of each reach and tractive force and sediment transport analyses conducted. Findings demonstrate that erosional disturbances typically in the form of headcuts and lateral migration are frequently observed at considerable distances upstream of reservoir limits. Depending upon the upstream bedload grain size distribution, the rate of channel armouring and dam height (i.e. localized friction slope), channel disturbances may continue for several decades and continue to degrade a given watercourse for several kilometers upstream of a reservoir. Findings further support the need to consider upstream grade-control and floodplain re-connectivity as part of such restoration initiatives to minimize degradational impacts, down stream sedimentation and to stabilize aquatic and riparian habitat.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207