Feedbacks Between Shallow Groundwater Dynamics and Surface Topography on Runoff Generation in Flat Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In winter, saturation excess (SE) ponding is observed regularly in temperate lowland regions. Surface runoff dynamics are controlled by small topographical features that are unaccounted for in hydrological models. To better understand storage and routing effects of small‐scale topography and their interaction with shallow groundwater under SE conditions, we developed a model of reduced complexity to investigate SE runoff generation, emphasizing feedbacks between shallow groundwater dynamics and mesotopography. The dynamic specific yield affected unsaturated zone water storage, causing rapid switches between negative and positive head and a flatter groundwater mound than predicted by analytical agrohydrological models. Accordingly, saturated areas were larger and local groundwater fluxes smaller than predicted, leading to surface runoff generation. Mesotopographic features routed water over larger distances, providing a feedback mechanism that amplified changes to the shape of the groundwater mound. This in turn enhanced runoff generation, but whether it also resulted in runoff events depended on the geometry and location of the depressions. Whereas conditions favorable to runoff generation may abound during winter, these feedbacks profoundly reduce the predictability of SE runoff: statistically identical rainfall series may result in completely different runoff generation. The model results indicate that waterlogged areas in any given rainfall event are larger than those predicted by current analytical groundwater models used for drainage design. This change in the groundwater mound extent has implications for crop growth and damage assessments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".