MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212245283 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10508718.1

How much inundation occurs in the Amazon River basin?

2021· preprint· en· W3212245283 on OpenAlexaff
Ayan Santos Fleischmann, Fabrice Papa, Alice César Fassoni‐Andrade, John M. Mélack, Sly Wongchuig, Rodrigo Cauduro Dias de Paiva, Stephen K. Hamilton, Etienne Fluet‐Chouinard, Rafael Barbedo, Filipe Aires, Ahmad Al Bitar, Marie‐Paule Bonnet, Michael T. Coe, Jefferson Ferreira‐Ferreira, Laura L. Hess, Katherine Jensen, K. C. McDonald, Alex Ovando, Edward Park, Marie Parrens, Sébastien Pinel, Catherine Prigent, Angélica Faria de Resende, Menaka Revel, Åke Rosenqvist, Jessica Rosenqvist, Conrado M. Rudorff, Thiago Sanna Freire Silva, Dai Yamazaki, Walter Collischonn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Amazon River basin harbors some of the world’s largest wetland complexes, which are of major importance for biodiversity, the water cycle and climate, and human activities. Accurate estimates of inundation extent and its variations across spatial and temporal scales are therefore fundamental to understand and manage the basin’s resources. More than fifty inundation estimates have been generated for this region, yet major differences exist among the datasets, and a comprehensive assessment of them is lacking. Here we present an intercomparison of 29 inundation datasets for the Amazon basin derived from remote sensing-based products, hydrological models and multi-source products. Spatial resolutions range from 12.5 m to 25 km, and temporal resolution from static to monthly intervals, covering up to a few decades. Overall, 26% of the lowland Amazon basin is estimated as subject to inundation by at least one product. The long-term maximum inundated area across the entire basin (lowland areas with elevation < 500 m) is estimated at 599,700 ± 81,800 km² if considering only higher quality SAR-based products and 490,300 ± 204,800 km² if considering 18 basin-scale datasets. However, even the highest resolution SAR-based product underestimates the local maximum values, as estimated by subregional products, suggesting a basin-wide underestimation of ~10%. The minimum inundation extent shows greater disagreements among products than the maximum extent: 139,300 ± 127,800 km² for SAR-based products and 112,392 ± 79,300 km² for the overall average. Discrepancies arise from differences among sensors, time periods, dates of acquisition, spatial resolution, and data processing algorithms. The median total area subject to inundation in medium to large river floodplains (drainage area > 1,000 km²) is 323,700 km². The highest spatial agreement is observed for floodplains dominated by open water such as along the lower mainstem rivers, whereas intermediate agreement is found along major vegetated floodplains fringing larger rivers (e.g., Amazon mainstem floodplain). Especially large disagreements exist among estimates for interfluvial wetlands (Llanos de Moxos, Pacaya-Samiria, Negro, Roraima), where inundation tends to be shallower and more variable in time. Our data inter-comparison helps identify the current major knowledge gaps regarding inundation mapping in the Amazon and their implications for multiple applications. In the context of forthcoming hydrology-oriented satellite missions, we make recommendations for future developments of inundation estimates in the Amazon and present a WebGIS application (https://amazon-inundation.herokuapp.com/) we developed to provide user-friendly visualization and data acquisition of current Amazon inundation datasets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207