Mechanisms and pathways of lateral flow on aspen‐forested, Luvisolic soils, Western Boreal Plains, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rainfall simulation experiments by Redding and Devito ( 2008 , Hydrological Processes 23: 4287–4300) on two adjacent plots of contrasting antecedent soil moisture storage on an aspen‐forested hillslope on the Boreal Plain showed that lateral flow generation occurred only once large soil storage capacity was saturated combined with a minimum event precipitation of 15–20 mm. This paper extends the results of Redding and Devito ( 2008 , Hydrological Processes 23: 4287–4300) with detailed analysis of pore pressure, soil moisture and tracer data from the rainfall simulation experiments, which is used to identify lateral flow generation mechanisms and flow pathways. Lateral flow was not generated until soils were wet into the fine textured C horizon. Lateral flow occurred dominantly through the clay‐rich Bt horizon by way of root channels. Lateral flow during the largest event was dominated by event water, and precipitation intensity was critical in lateral flow generation. Lateral flow was initiated as preferential flow near the soil surface into root channels, followed by development of a perched water table at depth, which also interacted with preferential flow pathways to move water laterally by the transmissivity feedback mechanism. The results indicate that lateral flow generated by rainfall on these hillslopes is uncommon because of the generally high available soil moisture storage capacity and the low probability of rainfall events of sufficient magnitude and intensity. Copyright © 2010 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".