Spatiotemporal hydrological analysis of streamflows and groundwater recharge for sustainable water management in Prince Edward Island, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, entirely depends on groundwater for freshwater supplies, which also highly feeds streamflows. In a few watersheds, pumping has had disturbed steady‐state conditions and reduced streamflows. Spatiotemporal hydrological analysis of streamflows and recharges was performed in its scattered watersheds. Mill, Wilmot, West, Winter, and Bear River watersheds were modeled by the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) under the shallow water‐table conditions, besides other analyses. The model was calibrated against 120 observed mean monthly flows (1995–2004) and validated for another 120 observations (2005–2014), with Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) as the major performance assessment parameter. The model accurately simulated mean monthly flows for all watersheds during 1995–2014, except Winter River watershed (NSE = 0.02–0.33), wherein it overpredicted by 31%–52% and 5–12% in Wilmot River (NSE = 0.28–0.64). Streamflows were found highly dependent on groundwater; therefore, pumpings of 6.92 and 0.73 million cubic meters (MCM)/year caused the overpredictions in Winter and Wilmot watersheds, as SWAT cannot account pumping. In the rest three watersheds with negligible pumping, 4%–18% underprediction was due to multisite calibration. Spatially, streamflows randomly varied between 555 and 811 mm/year across watersheds, whereas thick and highly permeable sandstone produced higher recharges, the maximum ~600 mm/year in the eastern forest‐dominated Bear River watershed, lesser in western ~330 mm/year, and moderate ~450 mm/year in central watersheds. Temporally, March–May are the months of highest streamflows, whereas recharge is maximum during April–July. The succession trend justified strong surface water–groundwater interactions. Existing Water Extraction Permitting Policy ensures sustainability at the island scale. It sets pumping limit at 20% of recharge, that is, 0.48 km 3 /year altogether, against the present pumping of ~0.04 km 3 /year, yet a few watersheds are somewhat water‐stressed due to population and pumping concentration. Expansion of streamflow and groundwater monitoring, promoting population and pumping in rural areas, and more scrutiny for further pumping permits in water‐stressed watersheds are quite important for sustainable water management in PEI.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".