Water budget, performance of evapotranspiration formulations, and their impact on hydrological modeling of a small boreal peatland-dominated watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peatlands occupy around 13% of the land cover of Canada, and thus they play a key role in the water balance at high latitudes. They are well known for having substantial water loss due to evapotranspiration. Since measurements of evapotranspiration are scarce over these environments, hydrologists generally rely on models of varying complexity to evaluate these water exchanges in the global watershed balance. This study quantifies the water budget of a small boreal peatland-dominated watershed. We assess the performance of three evapotranspiration models in comparison with in situ observations and the impact of using these models in the hydrological modeling of the watershed. The study site (∼1 km2) is located in the eastern James Bay lowlands, Québec, Canada. During summer 2012, an eddy flux tower measured evapotranspiration continuously, while a trapezoidal flume monitored streamflow at the watershed outlet. We estimated evapotranspiration with a combinational model (Penman), a radiation-based model (Priestley–Taylor), and a temperature-based model (Hydro-Québec), and performed the hydrological modeling of the watershed with HYDROTEL, a physically based semi-distributed model. Our results show that the Penman and Priestley–Taylor models reproduce the observations with the highest precision, while a substantial drop in performance occurs with the Hydro-Québec model. However, these discrepancies did not appear to reduce the hydrological model efficiency, at least from what can be concluded from a 3-month modeling period. HYDROTEL appears sensitive to evapotranspiration inputs, but calibration of model parameters can compensate for the differences. These findings still need to be confirmed with longer modeling periods.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".