MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281618214 · doi:10.1002/hyp.14618

Assessing the efficacy of offline water storage ponds for natural flood management

2022· article· en· W4281618214 on OpenAlexafffund
Tamsin Lockwood, Jim Freer, Katerina Michaelides, Richard E. Brazier, Gemma Coxon

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGlobal Water FuturesNatural Environment Research CouncilUniversity of BristolNatural England
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)HydrographFlood mythSurface runoffStormChannel (broadcasting)Retention basinStream restorationDigital elevation modelFlooding (psychology)STREAMSStormwaterGeographyRemote sensingGeologyComputer scienceEcologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Land use changes, landscape modifications and changing climate have resulted in local to regional flood risk increases in recent decades. As an alternative to traditional engineering approaches, there has been a movement towards catchment‐based flood risk management, a subset of which is natural flood management (NFM). NFM aims to enhance flood resilience through the slowing and storing of runoff and flow, based on the restoration and augmentation of hydrological and morphological catchment features. However, despite research highlighting their potential benefits, there is a limited quantity of robust and science‐based empirical evidence on how these structures function in the landscape and their efficacy in reducing flood hazards. To address this knowledge gap and contribute to the growing NFM evidence base, this study evaluates the efficacy of offline water storage ponds for flow attenuation. Two contrasting pond sites in the Tone and Parrett catchment headwaters (SW‐England) were monitored from April 2018 to December 2020 for channel flow, pond volume, and rainfall. Field‐scale, high resolution (1.61 cm spatial support) digital elevation models from Structure‐from‐Motion and manual surveys were collected to quantify pond dynamics and connectivity. A comprehensive, storm definition methodology was developed for event separation, to enable quantification of the impact of pond behaviour on stream flow, across storm hydrographs. Results show that where offline ponds function as designed, with direct pond filling from the channel, peak flow attenuation can reach 7% (maximum event AEP of 83%). Smaller events, where pond filling occurs directly from rainfall or runoff display only a maximum of 3% peak flow reduction (event AEP from 83% –>99%). The ability of ponds to attenuate flow is heavily reliant on sufficient structural conditions for ponds to fill directly from the channel and to drain slowly following event peaks. This study provides an empirical database for future NFM applications, including key criteria for future design and for use as observational data in modelling applications, by upscaling the efficacy of ponds to reduce flood impacts at larger scales.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207