Flood-Rings Production Modulated by River Regulation in Eastern Boreal Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In northeastern boreal Canada, the long-term perspective on spring flooding is hampered by the absence of long gage records. Changes in the tree-ring anatomy of periodically flooded trees have allowed the reconstruction of historical floods in unregulated hydrological systems. In regulated rivers, the study of flood rings could recover past flood history, assuming that the effects of hydrological regulation on their production can be understood. This study analyzes the effect of regulation on the flood-ring occurrence (visual intensity and relative frequency) and on ring widths in Fraxinus nigra trees growing at five sites distributed along the Driftwood River floodplain. Driftwood River was regulated by a dam in 1917 that was replaced at the same location in 1953. Ring width revealed little, to no evidence, of the impact of river regulation, in contrast to the flood rings. Prior to 1917, high relative frequencies of well-defined flood rings were recorded during known flood years, as indicated by significant correlations with reconstructed spring discharge of the nearby Harricana River. After the construction and the replacement of the dam, relative frequencies of flood rings and their intensities gradually decreased. Flood-ring relative frequencies after 1917, and particularly after 1953, were mostly composed of weakly defined (less distinct) flood rings with some corresponding to known flood years and others likely reflecting dam management. The strength of the correlations with the instrumental Harricana River discharge also gradually decrease starting after 1917. Compared with upper floodplain trees, shoreline trees at each site recorded flood rings less frequently following the construction of the first but especially of the second dam, indicating that water level regulation limited flooding in the floodplains. Compared with the downstream site to the dam, the upstream ones recorded significantly more flood rings in the postdam period, reemphasizing the importance of considering the position of the site along with the river continuum and site conditions in relation to flood exposure. The results demonstrated that sampling trees in multiple riparian stands and along with various hydrological contexts at a far distance of the dams could help disentangle the flooding signal from the dam management signal.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".