Variability and Comparison of Hyporheic Water Temperatures and Seepage Fluxes in a Small Atlantic Salmon Stream <sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground water discharge is often a significant factor in the quality of fish spawning and rearing habitat and for highly biologically productive streams. In the present study, water temperatures (stream and hyporheic) and seepage fluxes were used to characterize shallow ground water discharge and recharge within thestreambed of Catamaran Brook, a small Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) stream in central New Brunswick, Canada. Three study sites were instrumented using a total of 10 temperature sensors and 18 seepage meters. Highly variable mean seepage fluxes, ranging from 1.7 x 10(-4) to 2.5 cm3 m(-2) sec(-1), and mean hyporheic water temperatures, ranging from 10.5 degrees to 18.0 degrees C, at depths of 20 to 30 cm in the streambed were dependent on streambed location (left versus right stream bank and site location) and time during the summer sampling season. Temperature data were usefulfor determining if an area of the streambed was under discharge (positive flux), recharge (negative flux), or parallel flow (no flux) conditions and seepage meters were used to directly measure the quantity of water flux. Hyporheic water temperature measurements and specific conductance measurements of the seepage meter sample water, mean values ranging from 68.8 to 157.9 microS/cm, provided additional data for determining flux sources. Three stream banks were consistently under discharge conditions, while the other three stream banks showed reversal from discharge to recharge conditions over the sampling season. Results indicate that the majority of the water collected in the seepage meters was composed of surface water. The data obtained suggests that even though a positive seepage flux is often interpreted as ground water discharge, this discharging water may be of stream water origin that has recently entered the hyporheic zone.The measurement of seepage flux in conjunction with hyporheic water temperature or other indicators of water origin should be considered when attempting to quantify the magnitude of exchange and the source of hyporheic water.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".