MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296509518 · doi:10.1002/2015wr017199

Are all runoff processes the same? Numerical experiments comparing a <scp>D</scp>arcy‐<scp>R</scp>ichards solver to an overland flow‐based approach for subsurface storm runoff simulation

2015· article· en· W2296509518 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Ameli, James R. Craig, Jeffrey J. McDonnell

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSurface runoffSubsurface flowInfiltration (HVAC)Hydrology (agriculture)StormBedrockHydrographGeologyVadose zoneRunoff modelEnvironmental scienceRunoff curve numberSoil scienceSoil waterGroundwaterGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hillslope runoff theory is based largely on the differentiation between infiltration excess overland flow, saturation excess overland flow, and subsurface stormflow. Here we explore to what extent a 2‐D friction‐based overland flow model is useful for predicting hillslope‐scale subsurface stormflow, posited here as phenomenologically the same as infiltration excess at depth. We compare our results to a 3‐D variably saturated Darcy‐Richards subsurface solver for individual rainfall runoff events. We use field data from the well‐studied Panola Mountain Experimental hillslope in Georgia USA. Our results show that the two models are largely indistinguishable in terms of their ability to simulate the hillslope hydrograph magnitude and timing for a range of slopes and rainfall depths. Furthermore, we find that the descriptive ability of the overland flow model is comparable to the variably saturated subsurface flow model in terms of its ability to represent the spatial distribution of subsurface stormflow and infiltration across the soil‐bedrock interface. More importantly, these results imply that the physics of infiltration excess subsurface stormflow at the soil‐bedrock interface is similar to infiltration excess overland flow at the soil surface, in terms of detention storage, loss along the lower boundary, and threshold‐like activation at the larger hillslope scale. Given the phenomenological similarity of overland flow and subsurface stormflow and the fact that overland flow model predictions are considerably faster to run (particularly as slope and rainfall depth increase), these findings imply that new forms of hillslope‐scale subsurface storm runoff predictions may be possible with the knowledge of bedrock permeability and limited soil information. Finally, this work suggests that the role of soil mantle vis‐à‐vis subsurface stormflow is mainly as a filter that delays the development of patches of saturation along the bedrock surface. Our model results show that simple realizations of soil based on a few soil depth measurements can possibly be enough to characterize this filtering effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.352
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 teacher head, 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

Citations52
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207