Instream restoration: its effects on lateral stream–subsurface water exchange in urban and agricultural streams in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Instream restoration strategies do not generally consider the subsurface environment. The study of recently restored stream reaches can provide an opportunity to assess the impacts of restoration on surface–subsurface exchange. In this study, lateral hyporheic zones occurring in a constructed gravel bar and re‐meandered stream reach were examined, using hydrometric data in combination with differences in background conservative ion and tracer injection experiments. Both the constructed gravel bar and the meander bends induced lateral hyporheic exchange flow. In the gravel bar, lateral hyporheic exchange increased after a riffle‐pool sequence was constructed in the channel adjacent to the bar. The substrate in the meander bends had low saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the stream–subsurface exchange was limited despite the large change in channel configuration. These results suggest that to enhance and maintain stream–subsurface water exchanges, restoration projects that modify horizontal geometry should involve construction of vertical morphologic features, and where floodplain sediments are fine‐grained, the addition of coarse sediments should also be incorporated in the design. Copyright © 2007 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".