MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412716878 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113925

Compound vs. single droughts: different impacts on river water quality revealed by multi-decadal observations

2025· article· en· W4412716878 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jing Xu, Jiefeng Wu, Huaxia Yao, Jianzhu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater qualityQuality (philosophy)EcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Proposed a framework for revealing how water quality responds to various types of droughts. • Identified positive response relationship of TC, TN, and TP to drought duration and severity. • Random forest can be used to simulate TC, TN, and TP based on drought characteristics. • Compound droughts have more complex impacts on water quality than single drought. Droughts impact both water quantity and quality. Research is needed on how water quality (e.g., total carbon, TC; total nitrogen, TN; and total phosphorus, TP) responds to different droughts (single or compound) and their characteristics (i.e., duration and severity). It also needs to be addressed whether these water quality indicators during different droughts can be simulated based on drought characteristics. We used 1979–2018 hydro-meteorological and water quality data from Harp Lake in south-central Ontario, Canada. First, we analyzed trends and annual distribution of relevant factors. Then, we identified meteorological, hydrological, and compound droughts using the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and Standardized Streamflow Index (SSI), by applying run theory to extract the drought characteristics. Lastly, we established a response relationship of TC, TN, and TP to different drought characteristics, and used random forest method to construct simulation models for TC, TN, and TP during droughts. The simulation models were evaluated using correlation coefficient (CC) and Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE). The results showed that: ( i ) In the HP4 watershed, TC showed a significant upward trend ( p < 0.01) over 40 years of long-term data, while TN and TP showed a significant downward trend ( p < 0.01). ( ii ) The concentration of TC did not show significant changes in drought, while TN concentration increases, and TP concentration decreases. ( iii ) The random forest model can effectively simulate the cumulative concentrations of TC, TN, and TP during drought periods (CC > 0.90, NSE > 0.60). However, the simulation results for compound droughts are poorer than for other drought types, highlighting the greater complexity of compound drought impact on river water quality relative to single droughts. These findings may aid in water quality management during droughts and may have broader applications in environmental monitoring and water resource management.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207