A comparison of solute fluxes and sources from glacial and non‐glacial catchments over contrasting melt seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solute and runoff fluxes from two adjacent alpine streams (one glacial and one non‐glacial) were investigated to determine how the inorganic solute chemistry of runoff responded to seasonal and interannual changes in runoff sources and volume, and to differences in physical catchment properties. Intercatchment differences in solute composition were primarily controlled by differences in catchment geology and the presence of soils, whereas differences in total solute fluxes were largely dependent on specific discharge. The glacial stream catchment had higher chemical denudation rates due to the high rates of flushing (higher specific discharge). The non‐glacial Bow River had higher overall concentrations of solutes despite the greater prevalence of more resistant lithologies in this catchment. This is likely the result of both longer average water–rock contact times, and a greater supply of protons from organic soils and/or pyrite oxidation. Increases in snowpack depth/snowmelt runoff reduced the retention of nitrate in the Bow River catchment (i.e. increased nitrate export), probably by reducing net biological uptake, or by reducing the proportion of runoff that had contact with biologically active soil horizons that tend to remove nitrate. The two streams exhibited opposite solute flux responses to climate perturbations over three melt seasons (1998, 1999, and 2000). The 1998 El Niño event resulted in an unusually thin winter snowpack, and increased runoff and solute fluxes from the glacial catchment, but decreased fluxes from the Bow River catchment. Solute fluxes in the Bow River increased proportionally to discharge, indicating that increased snowmelt runoff in this catchment resulted in a proportional increase in weathering rates. In contrast, the proportional variation in solute flux in the glacial stream was only ∼70–80% of the variation in water flux. This suggests that increased ablation of glacier ice and the development of subglacial channels during the 1998 El Niño year apparently reduced the average water–rock contact time in the glacial catchment relative to seasons when the subglacial drainage system was primarily distributed in character. Copyright © 2005 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".