MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405868454 · doi:10.1080/07011784.2024.2442363

Modelling peatland disruption in bisected bogs and the potential impacts on source water protection

2024· article· en· W4405868454 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Rory McPhail, Anthony Mazzocca, Nicholas M. Hill, Lauren Somers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsCape Breton Regional HospitalDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBogWetlandPeatHydrology (agriculture)GroundwaterWatershedWater tableEnvironmental scienceOmbrotrophicRiparian zoneForestryGeographyGeologyEcologyArchaeologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In flat terrain and humid climates, raised bogs can form the topographic watershed boundary of protected source watersheds. In these cases, only half of the ‘bisected bog’ is protected. A GIS analysis revealed that bisected bogs are common in Protected Water Areas (PWAs) in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. We consider if these bisected bogs should be included in PWAs by exploring how drainage in the unprotected side of the bog may impact the protected watershed. Groundwater monitoring and slug tests were performed in a transect of piezometers in a large, bisected bog in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada to constrain a groundwater flow model. Under varying drainage scenarios (1 m, 3 m and complete harvest), simulations showed that the groundwater divide shifts 41 to 398 m inwards, 219,000 m3 to 1,570,000 m3 of water storage are lost and up to 23,600 to 156,100 tonnes of soil carbon become unstable. These findings suggest that it is illogical to protect only part of a bisected bog and that the entire bog should be protected to preserve hydrologic functionality. We provide recommendations for water managers to identify and address bisected wetlands to improve source water protection and maintain wetland ecosystem services. En terrain plat et dans les climats humides, les tourbières surélevées peuvent former la limite topographique des bassins versants sources protégés. Dans ces cas, seule la moitié de la « tourbière divisée en deux » est protégée. Une analyse SIG a révélé que les tourbières divisées en deux sont courantes dans les zones d'eau protégées (PWA) de la province de la Nouvelle-Écosse, au Canada. Nous examinons si ces tourbières divisées en deux devraient être incluses dans les PWA en explorant comment le drainage du côté non protégé de la tourbière peut avoir un impact sur le bassin versant protégé. La surveillance des eaux souterraines et des tests de simulation ont été effectués sur un transect de piézomètres dans une grande tourbière divisée en deux au Cap Breton, en Nouvelle-Écosse, au Canada, afin de contraindre un modèle d'écoulement des eaux souterraines. Sous différents scénarios de drainage (1 m, 3 m et récolte complète), les simulations ont montré que la ligne de partage des eaux souterraines se déplace de 41 à 398 m vers l'intérieur, que 219 000 m3 à 1 570 000 m3 d'eau de stockage sont perdus et que jusqu'à 23 600 à 156 100 tonnes de carbone du sol deviennent instables. Ces résultats suggèrent qu'il est illogique de protéger seulement une partie d'une tourbière divisée en deux et que la totalité de la tourbière devrait être protégée pour préserver la fonctionnalité hydrologique. Nous fournissons des recommandations aux gestionnaires de l’eau pour identifier et traiter les zones humides divisées en deux afin d’améliorer la protection des sources d’eau et de maintenir les services écosystémiques des zones humides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques→Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→