Rainfall Interception by Mature Coastal and Interior Forests in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interception of rainfall by forest canopies and its evaporation back to the atmosphere is an important component of the hydrological balance. We quantify the influence of six mature forests at two coastal and one southern interior locations in British Columbia on interception loss. Drainage from the canopy was measured with throughfall troughs and stemflow collars that emptied into tipping buckets monitored by data loggers. Interception loss was evaluated on an event basis and summed to monthly and seasonal totals. The throughfall coefficients increased with a decrease in canopy volume with values of 0.3 for the south coast forest, 0.5 for the north coast forests, and 0.6 for the southern interior forests. The respective saturation capacities were 2.0, 1.1, and 0.6 mm. The average evaporation rates during events varied from 0.05 to 0.3 mm h-1 at all sites. Consequently, for large events, interception loss was dominated by evaporation and replenishment of water in storage during the event. Increasingn event size increased interception loss, which tended to plateau at large events. The coastal forests had throughfall 75±2 percent, stemflow 1±0.2 percent, and interception loss 24±2 percent of the May to November rainfall. The respective values for the interior forests were 72±3 percent, 0.05±0.05 percent, and 28±3 percent of the late May to October rainfall. The similarity between coastal and interior sites in the partitioning of the seasonal rainfall resulted from the differing distributions of event size and similar evaporation rates of intercepted water during events.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".