Increasing River Flow Expands Riparian Habitat: Influences of Flow Augmentation on Channel Form, Riparian Vegetation and Birds Along the Little Bow River, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With river regulation, water withdrawal is common, reducing instream flows. The opposite alteration, flow augmentation, is less common and could reveal a mechanistic coordination between flow regime, channel form, and riparian ecosystems. The Little Bow River, a naturally intermittent prairie stream in Southern Alberta, has experienced flow augmentation since the late 1890s, and the Little Bow/Highwood Project of 2004 enabled a tripling of diversion flows from 2.9 to 8.5 m 3 /s. We investigated the subsequent responses by assessing the channel form and riparian vegetation based on aerial photographs taken in 2000 versus 2010, and riparian birds were assessed between 2005 and 2013 to investigate associations with riparian vegetation. Following recent flow augmentation, the mean channel width increased from 12.2 to 13.5 m, while sinuosity was relatively unchanged. Streamside zones with true willows (especially Salix exigua and Salix bebbiana ) increased from 7 to 11% of the river corridor, and the facultative riparian wolf willow ( Elaeagnus commutata ) zones increased from 16 to 20%, while grassy zones decreased from 64 to 52%. Avian species richness and Shannon–Wiener index increased, while species evenness was relatively unaltered, suggesting an increase of rarer bird species in response to the increased habitat structure and diversity following the expansion of riparian shrubs and woodland. This study revealed responses to the recent flow augmentation over the first decade of implementation, and alterations following flow augmentation would likely continue for decades until the river and riparian zones adjust to the new flow regime. Copyright © 2016 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".