Effects of peatland drainage management on peak flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Open ditch drainage has historically been a common land management practice in upland blanket peats, particularly in the UK. However, peatland drainage is now generally considered to have adverse effects on the upland environment, including increased peak flows. As a result, drain blocking has become a common management strategy in the UK over recent years, although there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest that this might decrease peak flows. The change in the hydrological regime associated with the drainage of blanket peat and the subsequent blocking of drains is poorly understood, therefore a new physics-based model has been developed that allows the exploration of the associated hydrological processes. A series of simulations is used to explore the response of intact, drained and blocked drain sites at field scales. While drainage is generally found to increase peak flows, the effect of drain blocking appears to be dependent on local conditions, sometimes decreasing and sometimes increasing peak flows. Based on insights from these simulations we identify steep smooth drains as those that would experience the greatest reduction in field-scale peak flows if blocked and recommend that future targeted field studies should be focused on examining surface runoff characteristics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".