MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Soil erosion and sediment interception by check dam in watershed under extreme rainstorm on the Loess Plateau, China

2020· preprint· en· W4254497823 on OpenAlexaff
Leichao Bai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentErosionHydrology (agriculture)InterceptionWatershedLoess plateauEnvironmental scienceSoil waterGeologySoil scienceEcologyBiologyGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The magnitude of soil erosion and sediment reduction efficiency of check dams under extreme rainstorms are long-standing concerns. This paper aims to use check dams to deduce the amount of soil erosion under extreme rainstorms in watersheds and to identify the difference of sediment intercepting efficiency of different types of check dams. Based on the sediment deposition of 12 check dams with 100% sediment intercepting efficiency and sub-catchment clustering by taking 12 check dams-controlled catchments as standard separately, the amount of soil erosion caused by an extreme rainstorm event on July 26th, 2017 (named “7·26” extreme rainstorm) was deduced in the Chabagou watershed in the hill and gully region of the Loess Plateau. The differences of sediment intercepting efficiency among check dams in the watershed were analysed according to the field observation 17 check dams. The results showed that the average erosion intensity under the ‘7·26’ extreme rainstorm was approximately 2.03×104 t·km-2, which was 5 times that in the second erosive rainfall in 2017 (4.15×103 t·km-2) and 11-384 times that in 2018 (0.53×102 t·km-2 - 1.81×103 t·km-2). Under the ‘7·26’ extreme rainstorm, the amount of soil erosion in the Chabagou watershed above Caoping hydrological station was 4.20×106 tons. The sediment intercepting efficiencies check dams with drainage canals (including the destroyed check dams) and with drainage culverts was 6.48% and 39.49%, respectively. The total actual sediment amount trapped by the check dam was 1.11×106 tons, accounting for 26.36% of the total soil erosion amount. In contrast, 3.09×106 tons of sediment was inputted to the downstream channel, and the sediment deposition in the channel was 2.23×106 tons, accounting for 53.15% of the total amount of soil erosion. The amount of sediment transport at the hydrological station was 8.60×105 tons. The sediment delivery ratio (SDR) under the “7·26” extreme rainstorm was 0.21. The results indicated that the amount of soil erosion was huge, and the sediment intercepting efficiency of check dams was greatly reduced under extreme rainstorms. It is necessary to strengthen the management and construction technology standards of check dams to improve the sediment intercepting efficiency and flood safety in the watershed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207