Paired-basin comparison of hydrologic response in harvested and undisturbed hardwood forests during snowmelt in central Ontario: II. Streamflow sources and groundwater residence times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a paired-basin approach to examine the impacts of forest harvesting on event–pre-event water partitioning in streamflow and on shallow groundwater residence times during snowmelt in a northern hardwood landscape. The ability of topographic properties to explain spatial variations in groundwater residence times within forested and harvested basins was also explored. Reasonable agreement between isotopic (δ18O as tracer) and geochemical (Cl− as tracer) hydrograph separation results and good agreement between residence times obtained using the two tracers suggested that Cl− behaves as a conservative tracer in these basins. Geochemical hydrograph separations showed a greater total event-water flux and event-water contribution to peak streamflow from the harvested basin relative to the control 4 years after harvesting. This is consistent with hydrometric and hydrochemical results (Monteith et al., 2006, Hydrological Processes 20: this issue) that indicate surface and near-surface pathways contributed a greater proportion of runoff reaching the stream in the harvested basin, which may reflect increased daily melt rates following harvesting. However, there was no significant difference in mean groundwater residence times between the harvested (18 ± 16 days) and forested (16 ± 15 days) basins, and residence times did not exhibit significant differences with depth in either basin. Topographic metrics (topographic index, distance to stream) had a limited relationship with spatial patterns in groundwater residence times, as well as other groundwater properties (Monteith et al., 2006) in both basins. Spatial variations in factors such as near-surface hydraulic conductivity and till thickness should also be considered when explaining observed groundwater behaviour in a basin and its response to forest harvesting during snowmelt. 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".