Topographic Roughness on Forested Hillslopes: A Theoretical Approach for Quantifying Hillslope Sediment Flux From Tree Throw
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wind‐driven tree throw is an observable and consequential process that suddenly moves soil downslope, inverts the soil column, and roughens the surface with pit‐mound topography. Quantifying fluxes due to tree throw is complicated by its stochastic nature and estimation requires averaging over a large area or long time. Here, we develop a theory that leads to a dimensionless metric directly measurable from high resolution topographic data. The theory explains the flux and topographic roughness as a function of tree throw production and decay rate by creep‐like processes. We then form a measurable dimensionless variable that is the ratio of fluxes due to tree throw versus creep‐like processes. Applying the theory to hillslopes in Southern Indiana, we find that tree throw accounts for 11%–18% of the hillslope sediment flux. The theoretical and observational findings provide important constraints on quantifying Critical Zone function from topographic parameters such as roughness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".