Where does streamwater come from in low-relief forested watersheds? A dual-isotope approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The time and geographic sources of streamwater in low-relief watersheds are poorly understood. This is partly due to the difficult combination of low runoff coefficients and often damped streamwater isotopic signals precluding traditional hydrograph separation and convolution integral approaches. Here we present a dual-isotope approach involving 18O and 2H of water in a low-angle forested watershed to determine streamwater source components and then build a conceptual model of streamflow generation. We focus on three headwater lowland sub-catchments draining the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, USA. Our results for a 3-year sampling period show that the slopes of the meteoric water lines/evaporation water lines (MWLs/EWLs) of the catchment water sources can be used to extract information on runoff sources in ways not considered before. Our dual-isotope approach was able to identify unique hillslope, riparian and deep groundwater, and streamflow compositions. The streams showed strong evaporative enrichment compared to the local meteoric water line (δ2H = 7.15 · δ18O +9.28‰) with slopes of 2.52, 2.84, and 2.86. Based on the unique and unambiguous slopes of the EWLs of the different water cycle components and the isotopic time series of the individual components, we were able to show how the riparian zone controls baseflow in this system and how the riparian zone "resets" the stable isotope composition of the observed streams in our low-angle, forested watersheds. Although this approach is limited in terms of quantifying mixing percentages between different end-members, our dual-isotope approach enabled the extraction of hydrologically useful information in a region with little change in individual isotope time series.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".