MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3168503963 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-10491

Using polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to determine post-wildfire contamination and sediment sources in a large watershed in central British Columbia, Canada

2021· article· en· W3168503963 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristen Kieta, Philip Owens, Ellen L. Petticrew

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributaryEnvironmental scienceSedimentPopulationWatershedDrainage basinStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)EcologyGeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nechako River Basin (NRB) in central British Columbia is a large (52,000 km2), regulated basin that supports populations of sockeye and chinook salmon and the endangered Nechako white sturgeon. These important species are experiencing population declines and one potential cause of this decline is excess sediment, which can clog their spawning habitat and reduce juvenile success. This excess sediment is likely the product of a combination of factors, the most visible being the significant land cover changes that have occurred in the basin, which includes pressure from forestry and agriculture, the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic, and large-scale wildfires in 2018. Focusing specifically on the impact of the 2018 wildfires on sediment transport from upland burned areas to adjacent waterways, this research aimed to determine the spatial and temporal contamination of tributaries and the mainstem of the Nechako River with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are produced during the combustion of organic matter and have been identified as toxic to aquatic organisms and to humans. Additionally, this study intended to determine if burned areas were a more significant contributor of sediment than unburned areas and better understand the utility of PAHs as a potential tracer. Source soil samples were collected in 2018 and 2020 from burned and unburned sites, and suspended sediment samples were collected throughout the ice-free period from 2018-2020 in three tributaries and three mainstem sites. All samples were analysed for PAHs, magnetic susceptibility, colour, and particle size. Results from the fall 2018 source samples show a significant difference in PAH concentrations between unburned and burned soils, and while concentrations of PAHs in source soils in 2020 were lower than in 2018, they were still elevated compared to unburned soils. Sediment samples showed that concentrations of total PAHs are higher in the mainstem sites than in the tributaries, with the greatest concentrations consistently found at the most downstream site on the mainstem of the Nechako River. Concentrations across sites were highest in samples taken during the spring snowmelt period in 2019, have decreased throughout the rest of the sampling period (2019-2020), and are well below sediment quality guidelines for total PAHs. In addition to determining the spatial and temporal extent of PAH contamination, this study also aims to use PAHs along with colour and measurements of magnetic susceptibility to trace sediments associated with the 2018 wildfires. The high cost of PAH analysis limits the number of samples that can be analysed and thus, these additional tracers will allow for the use of models such as MixSIAR that improve with a more robust number of samples. As large-scale megafires continue to burn across the globe, understanding their potential to contribute PAHs to local waterbodies and potentially be used as a tracer is as prescient as ever.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→