A Targeted Approach for Mapping Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water and Fish Thermal Refuge in Four Lake Ontario Tributaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The duration, magnitude, and frequency of heatwaves are predicted to increase in the coming decades, a combination that can reduce the survival of many fish species. Across the world, there is broad interest in identifying thermal refuge for heat-intolerant fish species and exploring opportunities to enhance or protect these areas. Because deeper groundwater maintains a relatively constant temperature, groundwater-influenced areas along streams can provide cool-water refuge for fish during periods of extreme heat. A targeted approach was developed for identifying existing cold-water zones and areas of substantial groundwater discharge in four high priority Lake Ontario tributaries. Our approach included: (1) predicting where groundwater discharge is most likely with a simple geospatial model and (2) using model predictions to select field sites for intensive high-resolution study, including ground-based mapping of groundwater features (springs, seeps, tributaries) as well as drone-based optical and thermal infrared surveys. Results from field sites were used to both verify model performance and map different types and aerial extents of thermal anomalies. Geospatial modeling successfully predicted regions of widespread groundwater upwelling, later verified and mapped by field and drone surveys. Comparison of model and field survey results further highlighted specific geospatial layers, such as soil/bedrock types and topographic wetness index, as being particularly useful for predicting groundwater influence on streams in the study area. In addition, a comparison of geospatial model results with a model of fish abundances along the studied streams showed strong correlations (Spearman’s ρ as high as 0.93) for many heat-intolerant fish species over a wide geographic area. The approach developed in this study can be applied to other watersheds to highlight areas of probable groundwater discharge and could be used by fishery and water resource managers to support cold-water fish habitat management decision-making and resource conservation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".