Influence of drought identification methods on analyzing and assessing responses of water quality to droughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological drought, a global extreme event impacting water resources and ecosystems, is characterized by absolute (fixed drought threshold, FDT) or relative (variable drought threshold, VDT) low streamflow metrics. These metrics influence water quality analyses during droughts, a previously overlooked aspect. This study compares FDT and VDT to assess their effects on water quality responses in Harp Lake catchment, Ontario, using long-term (1978–2018) streamflow and water quality data (e.g., dissolved organic carbon, DOC; total nitrogen, TN; total phosphorus,TP). Our findings demonstrate that methodological disparities in hydrological drought identification substantially influence water quality responses to droughts, with divergent thresholds yielding distinct dynamics. Specifically, (i) drought events identified by FDT exhibit higher concentrations of DOC, TP, and TN than those by VDT (e.g., the DOC concentration recognized by FDT is 23.11% higher than that of VDT). However, their fluxes are restricted by reduced streamflow (e.g., the DOC flux recognized by FDT is 80.15% lower). (ii) Both methods show drought duration and severity positively correlate with nutrient concentrations, but FDT exhibits faster response rates. (iii) Discrepancies arise because FDT identifies longer, cross-seasonal droughts (25.35% longer average duration), while VDT detects short-term wet-dry fluctuations, fragmenting events. The study reveals that apart from the perturbations caused by drought itself on water quality, the drought identification method used can also make remarkable difference in the assessment of these perturbations, which calls more research or attention.
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 | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".