Evaporation from boreal reservoirs: A comparison between eddy covariance observations and estimates relying on limited data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrological models used for reservoir management typically lack an accurate representation of open‐water evaporation and must be run in a scarce data context. This study aims to identify an accurate means to estimate reservoir evaporation with simple meteorological inputs during the open‐water season, using long‐term eddy covariance observations from two boreal hydropower reservoirs with contrasting morphometry as reference. Unlike the temperate water bodies on which the majority of other studies have focused, northern reservoirs are governed by three distinct periods: ice cover in the cold season, warming in the summer and energy release in the fall. The reservoirs of interest are Eastmain‐1 (52°N, mean depth of 11 m) and Romaine‐2 (51°N, mean depth of 42 m), both located in eastern Canada. Four approaches are analysed herein: a combination approach, a radiation‐based approach, a mass‐transfer approach, and empirical methods. Of all the approaches, the bulk transfer equation with a constant Dalton number of 1.2 x 10 −3 gave the most accurate estimation of evaporation at hourly time steps, compared with the eddy covariance observations (RMSE of 0.06 mm h −1 at Eastmain‐1 and RMSE of 0.04 mm h −1 at Romaine‐2). The daily series also showed good accuracy (RMSE of 1.38 mm day −1 at Eastmain‐1 and RMSE of 0.62 mm day −1 at Romaine‐2) both in the warming and energy release phases of the open‐water season. The bulk transfer equation, on the other hand, was incapable of reproducing condensation episodes that occurred soon after ice breakup. Basic and variance‐based sensitivity analyses were conducted, in particular to measure the variation in performance when the bulk transfer equation was applied with meteorological observations collected at a certain distance (~10–30 km) from the reservoir. This exercise illustrated that accurate estimates of open water evaporation require representative measurements of wind speed and water surface temperature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".