MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546183908 · doi:10.5558/tfc2016-057

The influence of vegetation types on water yields in the Da Hinggan Mountains of China

2016· article· en· W2546183908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jixi Gao, Hao Zheng, Zhongjie Shi, Yanguo Teng, Xiaohui Yang, Meirong Tian, Chaoyang Feng, Yan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceEvapotranspirationHydrology (agriculture)Infiltration (HVAC)InterceptionVegetation (pathology)AridWater balanceVegetation typeGrasslandAgronomyEcologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change and excessive water use are endangering water resources in many areas of the world. As a result there is an urgency to increase available water resources and to improve water supply using vegetation management in catchment areas. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of four vegetation types (Quercus mongolica F.; QM), Larix spp. plantation; LP), Prunus sibirica L.; PS) and grassland; GL) on water yields by monitoring surface runoff, infiltration, canopy interception and evapotranspiration in the Da Hinggan Mountains, a semi-arid area of China. Surface runoff for each vegetation type was triggered by rainfall of at least 6.6 mm, with surface runoff significantly increasing with rainfall events over 15.8 mm. The QM forest had the highest amount of runoff (1.34 mm), followed by LP (1.06 mm), PS (1.01 mm) and GL (0.69 mm), this accounting for only 0.23% – 0.44% of the total water balance. Infiltration to a soil depth of 10 cm occurred with rainfall events with at least 13 mm, but the depth of infiltration rarely exceeded 30 cm during most rainfall events. More than half of the rainfall was taken up by vegetation during the growing season, with an order of LP > QM > PS > GL. Comprehensive analysis indicated that QM was the most appropriate vegetation for water conservation in this water-limited area, and this vegetation cover could effectively provide more water resources in the local area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207