The cumulative effects of forest disturbance and climate variability on baseflow in a large watershed in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Assessing how forest disturbance and climate change affect baseflow or groundwater discharge is critical for understanding water resource supply and protecting aquatic functions. Previous studies have mainly evaluated the effects of forest disturbance on streamflow, with rare attention on baseflow, particularly in large watersheds. However, studying this topic is challenging as it requires explicit inclusion of climate into assessment due to their interactions at any large watersheds. In this study, we used Upper Similkameen River watershed (USR) (1810 km2), located in the southern interior of British Columbia, Canada to examine how forest disturbance and climate variability affect baseflow. The conductivity mass balance method was first used for baseflow separation, and the modified double mass curves were then employed to quantitatively separate the relative contributions of forest disturbance and climate variability to annual baseflow. Our results showed that average annual baseflow and baseflow index (baseflow/streamflow) were about 85.2 ± 21.5 mm year-1 and 0.22 ± 0.05 for the study period of 1954–2013, respectively. The forest disturbance increased the annual baseflow of 18.4 mm, while climate variability decreased 19.4 mm. In addition, forest disturbance also shifted the baseflow regime with increasing of the spring baseflow and decreasing of the summer baseflow. We conclude that forest disturbance significantly altered the baseflow magnitudes and patterns, and its role in annual baseflow was equal to that caused by climate variability in the study watershed despite their opposite changing directions. The implications of our results are discussed in the context of future forest disturbance (or land cover changes) and climate changes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".