Hydrologic changes resulting from urban cover in seasonally snow‐covered catchments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are few multibasin analyses of the effects of urban land cover on seasonal stream flow patterns within northern watersheds where winter snow cover is the norm. In this study, the effects of urban cover on stream flow were evaluated at nine catchments in southern Ontario, Canada, which vary greatly in urban impervious cover (1–84%) but cluster into two groups having ≥54% urban impervious area (‘urban’) and ≤11% impervious cover (‘rural’), respectively. Annual and seasonal run‐off totals (millimetres) were similar between the rural and urban groups and were relatively insensitive to urban cover. Instead, urban streams had significantly greater high flow frequency, flow variability and quickflow and lower baseflow compared with rural streams. Furthermore, differences in high flow frequency between urban and rural stream groups were largest in the summer and fall and less extreme in the winter and spring, perhaps because of the homogenizing effect of winter snow cover, frozen ground and spring melt on surface imperviousness. Although the clear clustering of streams into urban and rural groups precluded the identification of a threshold above which urban cover is the primary cause of flow differences, relatively high extreme flow frequency and flow variability in the two most urbanized of the rural streams (10–11% impervious) suggest that it may lie close to this range. Furthermore, whereas total run‐off volumes were not affected by urban cover, increases in stream flashiness and a greater frequency of high flow events particularly during the summer and fall may negatively impact stream biota and favour the transfer of surface‐deposited pollutants to urban streams. Copyright © 2014 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".