Headwater stream temperature response to forest harvesting: Do lower flows cause greater warming?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study addressed two hypotheses regarding the relationship between stream temperature response to shade removal and streamflow: (a) that temperature response increases as flow declines and (b) that the relationship can be complicated by shifts in dominant streamflow sources and pathways during low‐flow periods. The study was based on a paired‐catchment design in rain‐dominated headwater catchments in the southern Coast Mountains of British Columbia, Canada, and focused on the effect of a 50% thinning treatment on daily maximum temperature in June, July and August for three sites within the harvest treatment. At the two upstream sites, the treatment response exhibited a negative relationship with daily mean streamflow, especially for days with high incident solar radiation. This result suggests that the effectiveness of forest practice rules for protecting cold‐water habitat may be reduced under future climatic conditions characterized by more frequent extended drought. However, stream temperature response at the most downstream site exhibited a pronounced inverted‐U‐shaped relationship with streamflow measured at a weir. It is hypothesized that the response at the most downstream temperature logger was controlled by the existence of a stable, relatively cool inflow just upstream of the logger, which represented an increasing fraction of flow as streamflow generated higher up in the catchment declined through time. There was a lack of convergent surface topography upstream of the logger, and it is hypothesized that localized inflow may have been controlled by the topography of the soil‐till interface and/or originated as hyporheic discharge.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".