Estimation of Groundwater Evapotranspiration of Different Dominant Phreatophytes in the Mu Us Sandy Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groundwater evapotranspiration (ETG) estimation is an important issue in semiarid areas for groundwater resources management and environmental protection. It is widely estimated by diurnal water table fluctuations. In this study, the ETG at four sites with different plants was estimated using both diurnal water table and soil moisture fluctuations in the northeastern Mu Us sandy region, in order to identify the groundwater utilization strategy by different dominant phreatophytes. Groundwater level was monitored by ventilatory pressure transducers (Solinst LevelVent, Solinst Canada Ltd.; accuracy ±3 mm), while soil moisture was monitored using EM50 loggers (Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, USA) in K1 and K14 and simulated by Hydrus-1D in other observation wells. A significant spatial variation of ETG was found within a limited area, indicating a poor representativeness of site ETG for regional estimation. The mean values of ETG are 4.01 mm/d, 6.03 mm/d, 8.96 mm/d, and 12.26 mm/d at the Achnatherum splendens site, Carex stenophylla site, Salix psammophila site and Populus alba site, respectively, for the whole growing season. ETG is more sensitive to depth to water table (DWT) in the Carex stenophylla site than in the Achnatherum splendens site for grass-dominated areas and more sensitive to DWT in the Populus alba site than in Salix psammophila site for tree-dominated areas. Groundwater extinction depths are estimated at 4.1 m, 2.4 m, 7.1 m, and 2.9 m in the Achnatherum splendens site, Carex stenophylla site, Salix psammophila site and Populus alba site, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".