Linking Soil Moisture Variation and Abundance of Plants to Geomorphic Processes: A Generalized Model for Erosion‐Uplifting Landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The diffusive and advective erosion‐created landscapes have similar structure (hillslopes and channels) across different scales regardless of variations in drivers and controls. The relative magnitude of diffusive erosion to advective erosion (D/K ratio) in a landscape development model controls hillslope length, shape, and drainage density, which regulate soil moisture variation, one of the critical resources of plants, through the contributing area (A) and local slope (S) represented by a topographic index (TI). Here we explore the theoretical relation between geomorphic processes, TI, and the abundance and distribution of plants. We derived an analytical model that expresses the TI with D, K, and A. This gives us the relation between soil moisture variation and geomorphic processes. Plant tolerance curves are used to link plant performance to soil moisture. Using the hypothetical tolerance curves of three plants, we show that the abundance and distribution of xeric, mesic, and hydric plants on the landscape are regulated by the D/K ratio. Where diffusive erosion is the major erosion process (large D/K ratio), mesic plants have higher abundance relative to xeric and hydric plants and the landscape has longer and convex‐upward hillslope and low channel density. Increasing the dominance of advective erosion increases relative abundance of xeric and hydric plants dominance, and the landscape has short and concave hillslope and high channel density.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".