MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Topographic modelling of soil moisture conditions: a comparison and verification of two models

2009· article· en· W2110824576 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul Murphy, Jae Ogilvie, Paul A. Arp

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Soil Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaForest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta
KeywordsTopographic Wetness IndexDigital elevation modelElevation (ballistics)Soil scienceWater contentLidarWatershedEnvironmental scienceFlow (mathematics)Remote sensingMoistureHydrology (agriculture)GeologyMathematicsMeteorologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Topography, as captured by a digital elevation model (DEM), can be used to model soil moisture conditions because water tends to flow and accumulate in response to gradients in gravitational potential energy. A widely used topographic index, the soil wetness index (SWI), was compared with a new algorithm that produces a cartographic depth‐to‐water (DTW) index based on distance to surface water and slope. Both models reflect the tendency for soil to be saturated. A 1 m resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) DEM and a 10 m conventional photogrammetric DEM were used and results were compared with field‐mapped wet soil areas for a 193 ha watershed in Alberta, Canada, for verification. The DTW model was closer to field‐mapped conditions. Values of K match90 (areal correspondence, smaller values indicating better performance) were 7.8% and 12.3% for the LiDAR and conventional DEM DTW models, respectively, and 88.5% and 86.7% for the SWI models. The two indices were poorly correlated spatially. Both DEMs were found to be useful for modelling soil moisture conditions using the DTW model, but the LiDAR DEM produced the better results. All major wet areas and flow connectivity were reproduced and a threshold value of 1.5 m DTW accounted for 71% of the observed wet areas. The poor performance of the SWI model is probably because of its over‐dependence on flow accumulation. Incorporation of a flow accumulation algorithm that replicates the effects of dispersed flow showed some improvement in the SWI model for the conventional DEM but it still failed to replicate the full areal extent of wet areas. Local downslope topography and hydrologic conditions seemed to be more important in determining soil moisture conditions than is taken account of by the SWI. The DTW model has potential for application in distributed hydrologic modelling, precision forestry and agriculture and implementation of environmental soil management practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations194
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207