Effects of Forest Harvesting on Warm-Season Low Flows in the Pacific Northwest: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paired-catchment studies conducted on small (< 10 km2) rain-dominated catchments revealed that forest harvesting resulted in a period of increased warm-season low flows ranging from less than five years to more than two decades, consistent with the results of stand-level studies and process considerations. Of the five paired-catchment studies in snow-dominated regions, none revealed a statistically significant change in warm-season low flows in the first decade following harvest, although two exhibited non-significant higher flows in August and September and one had lower flows. Two studies, one of rain-dominated catchments and one of snow-dominated catchments, found that summer low flows became more severe (i.e., lower) about two decades or so following harvest. These longer-term results indicate that indices such as equivalent clearcut area, as currently calculated using monotonic recovery curves, may not accurately reflect the nature of post-harvest changes in low flows. Studies focussed on medium to large catchments (tens to thousands of km2 in area) found either no statistically significant relations between warm-season low flows and forest disturbance, or inconsistent responses. Attempts to synthesize existing studies are hampered by the lack of a common low-flow metric among studies, as well as detailed information on post-harvest vegetation changes. Further fieldresearch and process-based modelling is required to help elucidate the underlying processes leading to the results from these paired-catchment studies and to enhance the ability to predict streamflow responses to forest harvesting, especially in the context of a changing climate. KEYWORDS: streamflow; forestry; low flows; fish habitat; hydrologic recovery
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".