MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396974086 · doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12328

Forestry impacts on stream flows and temperatures: A quantitative synthesis of paired catchment studies across the Pacific salmon range

2024· article· en· W4396974086 on OpenAlex
Sean M. Naman, Kara J. Pitman, Dylan S. Cunningham, Anna Potapova, Shawn Chartrand, Matthew R. Sloat, Jonathan W. Moore

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Solutions and Evidence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaLiber Ero Foundation
KeywordsDrainage basinRange (aeronautics)Environmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)ForestryGeographyOceanographyPhysical geographyGeologyCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Forestry is pervasive across temperate North America and may influence aquatic environmental conditions such as flows and temperatures, as well as important species such as Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus spp.). While there have been many large‐scale forestry experiments using paired catchment designs, these studies have yet to be quantitatively synthesized. Thus, it remains unclear whether forestry impacts are consistent, context‐dependent or unpredictable. This study aims to quantitatively synthesize forestry impacts on streamflow and temperature, through a systematic review and synthesis of paired catchment studies across the range of Pacific salmon. Specifically, we investigated whether generalizable relationships exist between forestry intensity (percent watershed harvested) and impacts to streamflow and temperature. We also examined whether watershed features (climate, hydrology and lithology) and harvest method mediated forestry impacts. We extracted information from 35 unique paired‐catchments from California to Alaska. Forestry had strong impacts on peak and low flows and maximum summer water temperatures, but responses were quite variable. Across all catchments, forestry elevated peak flows ~20% ( n = 31 catchments), reduced low flows ~25% ( n = 13 catchments) and increased maximum summer temperatures ~15% ( n = 35 catchments) on average. However, these impacts were variable and were not predictable based on forestry intensity, thus broader stressor–response relationships were not supported. Forestry impacts on peak flows and maximum summer temperatures varied spatially. Peak flow impacts increased with northward latitude and temperature impacts decreased with eastward longitude. However, the magnitude of impacts were unrelated to other watershed attributes, which included climate (precipitation and aridity), rain versus snow hydrology, elevation and bedrock lithology. Harvest method and riparian buffer presence also had no detected effects on forestry impacts across studies and statistical models explained a low proportion of variation overall. Collectively, our results indicate that forestry can have substantial impacts on key environmental conditions; however, the magnitude of impact was variable and could not be clearly linked to easily measured watershed characteristics. This implies that forestry impacts may not be broadly predictable. Probabilistic risk models based on distributions of potential impacts may therefore be more useful for watershed management in data‐poor situations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it