Groundwater flow paths drive longitudinal patterns of stream dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations in boreal landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preferential groundwater flow paths can influence dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration and export in the fluvial network because they facilitate the inflow of terrestrial DOC from large upslope contributing areas to discrete sections of the stream, referred to as discrete riparian inflow points (DRIPs). However, the mechanisms by which DRIPs influence longitudinal patterns of stream DOC concentrations are still poorly understood. In this study, we ask how DRIPs affect longitudinal patterns of stream DOC concentrations under different hydrologic conditions, as they can simultaneously act as major sources of terrestrial DOC and important locations for in-stream processes. To answer this question, we tested four model structures that account for different representations of hydrology (distributed inflows of DRIPs vs. diffuse groundwater inflow) and in-stream processes (no DOC uptake vs. in-stream DOC uptake downstream of DRIPs) to simulate stream DOC concentrations along a 1.5 km headwater reach for 14 sampling campaigns with flow conditions ranging from droughts to floods. Despite the magnitude and longitudinal patterns of stream DOC concentration varying across campaigns, at least one model structure was able to capture longitudinal trends during each campaign. Specifically, our results showed that during snowmelt periods or high-flow conditions (>50 L s −1 ), accounting for distributed inputs of DRIPs improved simulations of stream DOC concentrations along the reach, because groundwater inputs from DRIPs diluted the DOC in transport. Moreover, accounting for in-stream DOC uptake immediately downstream of DRIPs improved simulations during five sampling campaigns that were performed during spring and summer, indicating that these locations served as a resource of DOC for aquatic biota. These results show that the role of DRIPs in modulating DOC concentration, cycling, and export varies over time and depends strongly on catchment hydrology. Therefore, accounting for DRIPs can improve stream biogeochemistry frameworks and help inform management of riparian areas under current and future climatic conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".