Harnessing hyperspectral imagery to map surface water presence and hyporheic flow properties of headwater stream networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth and contraction of headwater stream networks determine the extent and quality of ecologically critical habitat, and open a window into the storage dynamics of catchments. A fundamental challenge is observation of the process itself: wetted channel extent is highly dynamic in space and time, with the length of wetted channel sometimes varying by orders of magnitude over the course of a single storm event in headwater catchments. To date, observational datasets are produced from boots-on-the-ground campaigns, drone imaging, or flow presence sensors, which are often laborious and limited in their spatial and temporal extents. Here, we evaluate high-resolution, multi-band satellite imagery as a means to detect wetted channel extent via machine learning methods trained using existing wetted channel extent surveys. Even where channel features are smaller than the spatial resolution of the imagery, the absence or presence of surface water may nevertheless be imprinted upon the spectral signature of an individual pixel. We leverage existing wetted channel extent surveys at two oak savanna catchments in northern California with minimal riparian canopy cover and highly dynamic wetted channel extent due to small subsurface water storage capacity and saturation overland flow. We train a random forest model on high-resolution ($\sim$5 m pixel) RapidEye satellite imagery captured contemporaneously with the existing surveys. Withheld test data indicates prediction accuracy of wet vs. dry channel extent is $>$91\%. This predictive ability is used to produce length-discharge (L-Q) relations and to calculate spatially distributed estimates of channel hyporheic flow capacity and exchange. A sharp break in hyporheic flow properties occurs at the transition from main stem channels to lower order tributaries, resulting in a stepped L-Q relationship that cannot be captured by traditionally used power law models. Remotely sensed imagery is a powerful tool for producing wetted channel maps at high spatial resolution ($\sim$10 m in this study to channels with $>$ 0.01 km$^2$ contributing area).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".