A Comparative Investigation of Infiltration and Channel Roughness of Ephemeral and Perennial Streams in a Mountainous Catchment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Infiltration and channel roughness, two major factors that govern stream discharge, were studied in similar‐sized ephemeral and perennial streams in a mountainous tropical catchment. Seasons were defined based on two ephemeral flow conditions, i.e., with (wet season) and without (dry season) surface flow. A stream was divided transversely into low‐flow areas (close to the thalweg) and high‐flow areas (close to the channel margin). The highest average infiltration (~50 mm/h) was observed in the low flow areas around the thalweg of ephemeral streams in the dry season and was significantly higher than for any other spatial scale or temporal period. The infiltration in high‐flow areas did not show a statistically significant difference between the two stream types, and surprisingly, perennial streams in the dry season showed higher infiltration than ephemeral streams. Since sediment moisture and organic content showed negative and positive correlations with infiltration, respectively, for both stream types and ephemeral streams showed statistically significant negative correlations between litter and infiltration during the dry season, the low infiltration in ephemeral high flow areas was attributed to stream‐type dependent litter processing. The litter of ephemeral stream high‐flow areas was subject to partial decomposition due to rapid drying and had residue of previously buried litter. Ephemeral channels were two to three times rougher than perennial channels. Standing crop biomass and mean particle size increased stream roughness in both stream types but were less prominent in ephemeral streams due to the presence of litter. The study demonstrated that litter has a special role in defining the infiltration pattern, channel roughness, and flood control potential of ephemeral streams.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".