Effects of Snow Water Storage on Hydrologic Partitioning Across the Mountainous, Western United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the montane western United States, where the majority of downstream water resources are derived from snowmelt, a warming climate threatens the timing and amount of future water availability. It is expected that the fraction of precipitation falling as snow will continue decreasing and the timing of snowmelt will continue shifting earlier in the year with unknown impacts on partitioning between evapotranspiration and streamflow. To assess this, we employ a Snow Storage Index (SSI) to represent the annual temporal phase difference between daily precipitation and daily modeled surface water inputs (SWI, the sum of rainfall and snowmelt), weighted by the respective amounts. We coupled the SSI metric with a Budyko‐based framework to determine the effect of snow water storage on relative hydrologic partitioning across snow‐influenced watersheds in the western U.S. Greater snow water storage was positively correlated with greater hydrologic partitioning to streamflow, particularly in the North Cascades/Cascades (r2: 0.62), Blue Mountains (r2: 0.56), Canadian Rockies (r2: 0.55), Idaho Batholith, (r2: 0.48), and Columbia Mountains/Northern Rockies (r2: 0.45). The weekly SWI:P ratio was an equally strong predictor for hydrologic partitioning, particularly in mid‐spring (e.g., March/April) in the same mountainous areas (r2: 0.62–0.74, across the same eco‐regions). The retention of snow water storage and subsequent release of stored water in summer months resulted in increased hydrologic partitioning to streamflow. If SSI decreases with future warming, the volume of water partitioned streamflow will decrease non‐uniformly across the western U.S. with substantial implications for ecosystems and agricultural, industrial, and domestic water supplies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".