Beaver dam analogue configurations influence stream and riparian water table dynamics of a degraded spring‐fed creek in the Canadian Rockies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Beaver dam analogues (BDAs) are intended to simulate natural beaver dam ecohydrological functions including modifying stream hydrology and enhancing stream‐riparian hydrological connectivity. River restoration practitioners are proactively deploying BDAs in thousands of degraded streams. How various BDAs or their configurations impact stream hydrology and the riparian water table remains poorly understood. We investigated three types of BDA configurations (single, double and triple) in a spring‐fed Canadian Rocky Mountain stream over three study seasons (April–October; 2017–2019). All three BDA configurations significantly elevated the upstream stage. The deepest pools occurred upstream of the triple‐configuration BDAs (0.46 m) and the shallowest pools occurred upstream of the single‐configuration (0.36 m). Further, the single‐BDA configuration lowered stream stage and flow peaks below it but raised low flows. The double‐BDA configuration modulated flow peaks but had little influence on low flows. Unexpectedly, higher flow peaks and low flows were recorded below the triple‐BDA configuration, owing to groundwater seep. Similar to the natural beaver dam function, we observed an immediate water table rise in the riparian area after installation of the BDAs. The water table rise was greatest 2 m from the stream (0.14 m) and diminished with increasing lateral distance from the stream. Also noted was a reversal in the direction of flow between the stream and riparian area after BDA installation. Future research should further explore the dynamics of stream‐riparian hydrological connections under various BDA configurations and spacings, with the goal of identifying best practices for simulating the ecohydrological functions of natural beaver dams.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".