How much groundwater can we pump and protect environmental flows through time? Presumptive standards for conjunctive management of aquifers and rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Groundwater is a critically important source of water for river, wetland, lake, and terrestrial ecosystems, yet most frameworks for assessing environmental flows have ignored or not explicitly included the potential impacts of groundwater pumping on environmental flows. After assessing the processes and existing policies for protecting streamflow depletion from groundwater pumping, we argue that a new groundwater presumptive standard is critical as a placeholder to protect environmental flows in rivers lacking detailed assessments. We thus extend the previous presumptive standard to groundwater pumping, a different and important driver of changes to streamflow. We suggest that “high levels of ecological protection will be provided if groundwater pumping decreases monthly natural baseflow by less than 10% through time.” The presumptive standard is intended to be a critical placeholder only where detailed scientific assessments of environmental flow needs cannot be undertaken in the near term. We also suggest a new metric, the environmental flow response time, that allows water managers to quantify the timescales of the impacts of groundwater pumping on the loss or gain of environmental flows.
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 | 0.034 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".