Camp Creek Revisited: Streamflow Changes Following Salvage Harvesting in a Medium-Sized, Snowmelt-Dominated Catchment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a paired-catchment approach to investigate the effects of harvesting on streamflow for Camp Creek, a snowmelt-dominated stream in the southern interior of British Columbia. The drainage area for Camp Creek is 33.9 km2, and 27 percent of the area was harvested in response to a pine beetle infestation. Adjacent Greata Creek, with a drainage area of 40.7 km2, served as a control. Harvesting resulted in a significant increase in April flows, which persisted with no evidence of recovery through the 18-year post-treatment period, as well as a significant advance in the timing of peak flows relative to those for the control stream. No significant nor apparent changes in seven-day low flows were detected. Peak flows appeared to increase for smaller events, but not for larger events, although this result was not statistically significant. Detection of significant harvesting effects on low flows, peak flows and annual water yield may have been hampered by inherent differences between the two catchments, particularly in relation to aspect and elevation distribution, as well as by the effects of a climate shift that coincided with the harvesting treatment, and which was associated with low snow accumulation throughout the post-treatment period. Problems with finding well-matched catchment pairs likely represent a fundamental limitation in applying the paired-catchment approach to estimate the effects of forest harvesting in medium to large catchments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".