MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033735877 · doi:10.1002/hyp.13840

Quantifying the spatial variability of melting seasonal ground ice and its influence on potential evapotranspiration spatial variability in a boreal peatland

2020· article· en· W3033735877 on OpenAlexafffund
Brandon Van Huizen, Richard M. Petrone

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShell CanadaSuncor Energy Incorporated
KeywordsEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceSpatial variabilityBorealAtmospheric sciencesSpatial ecologyHydrology (agriculture)PeatSpatial heterogeneitySoil scienceGeologyEcologyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Melting seasonal ground ice (SGI) in western Boreal Plains (WBP) peatlands can reduce the available energy at the surface by reducing potential evapotranspiration (PET). PET often exceeds annual precipitation in the WBP. Including this effect in hydrological models may be important in assessing water deficits. However, SGI melt and the timing of ice‐free conditions vary spatially, which suggests PET spatial variability could be influenced by SGI. Understanding this potential linkage can help improve site scale PET in peatland hydrological models. The objectives of this paper were (a) to quantify the effect of ice thickness and melt rate on peatland PET; (b) quantify the spatial variability of SGI thickness and melt rate across spatial scales; and (c) assess how/if spatial variability in SGI thickness/melt rate affects site scale PET. Results from the sensitivity analysis indicated that SGI thickness had a bigger impact on reducing PET compared with the melt rate. Two SGI thickness values were used that were observed on site: 0.32 m, which was measured in a more treed area, and 0.18 m, which was in a more open area. The 0.32 m had an average PET reduction of 14 mm (±0.7), over the month of May, compared with 9 mm (±1 mm) when there was 0.18 m of SGI, which are 13.7 and 8.8% reductions, respectively. SGI thickness and melt rate, both exhibited large‐ and small‐scale spatial variability. At the large scale, spatial patterns in SGI thickness appeared to be influenced by extensive shading from the adjacent hillslopes. Small scale, SGI thickness may be a function of tree proximity and the snowpack. Finally, net radiation, rather than SGI, appeared to be the main driver behind PET spatial variability. This work enhances our conceptual understanding of the role of SGI in WBP peatlands. Future work can use the findings to better inform peatland hydrological models, allowing for better representation of peatlands in regional‐scale models.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207