Identifying hydrologic signatures associated with streamflow depletion caused by groundwater pumping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Groundwater pumping can reduce streamflow in nearby waterways (‘streamflow depletion’), a process which must be accounted for in integrated management of surface and groundwater resources. However, causal identification of streamflow depletion from hydrographs alone is challenging because pumping impacts are masked by other drivers of hydrologic variability. To identify potential indicators of streamflow depletion, we used synthetic hydrographs and an analytical streamflow depletion model to assess potential pumping impacts on specific hydrograph characteristics (‘hydrologic signatures’) for 215 streamgages spanning the conterminous United States (CONUS). We found that streamflow depletion commonly impacts signatures associated with seasonal and annual low flows and low flow recessions. The largest impacts occurred during dry years, suggesting streamflow depletion may be evident in dry years even where impacts are unmeasurable in wet years. Random forest models indicated that streamflow depletion could significantly impact Annual, Summer, and Fall signatures in most streams. Our finding that multiple hydrologic signatures are consistently responsive to streamflow depletion across CONUS suggests that the underlying hydrological processes linking pumping to streamflow reductions are consistent across diverse settings, information that will aid in identifying indicators of streamflow depletion from streamflow hydrographs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".