Landscape controls on long‐term runoff in subhumid heterogeneous Boreal Plains catchments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compared median runoff (R) and precipitation (P) relationships over 25 years from 20 mesoscale (50 to 5,000 km2) catchments on the Boreal Plains, Alberta, Canada, to understand controls on water sink and source dynamics in water‐limited, low‐relief northern environments. Long‐term catchment R and runoff efficiency (RP−1) were low and varied spatially by over an order of magnitude (3 to 119 mm/year, 1 to 27%). Intercatchment differences were not associated with small variations in climate. The partitioning of P into evapotranspiration (ET) and R instead reflected the interplay between underlying glacial deposit texture, overlying soil‐vegetation land cover, and regional slope. Correlation and principal component analyses results show that peatland‐swamp wetlands were the major source areas of water. The lowest estimates of median annual catchment ET (321 to 395 mm) and greatest R (60 to 119 mm, 13 to 27% of P) were observed in low‐relief, peatland‐swamp dominated catchments, within both fine‐textured clay‐plain and coarse‐textured glacial deposits. In contrast, open‐water wetlands and deciduous‐mixedwood forest land covers acted as water sinks, and less catchment R was observed with increases in proportional coverage of these land covers. In catchments dominated by hummocky moraines, long‐term runoff was restricted to 10 mm/year, or 2% of P. This reflects the poor surface‐drainage networks and slightly greater regional slope of the fine‐textured glacial deposit, coupled with the large soil‐water and depression storage and higher actual ET of associated shallow open‐water marsh wetland and deciduous‐forest land covers. This intercatchment study enhances current conceptual frameworks for predicting water yield in the Boreal Plains based on the sink and source functions of glacial landforms and soil‐vegetation land covers. It offers the capability within this hydro‐geoclimatic region to design reclaimed catchments with desired hydrological functionality and associated tolerances to climate or land‐use changes and inform land management decisions based on effective catchment‐scale conceptual understanding.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".