2018
DOI: 10.5194/hess-22-2669-2018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A simple temperature-based method to estimate heterogeneous frozen ground within a distributed watershed model

Abstract: Abstract. Frozen ground can be important to flood production and is often heterogeneous within a watershed due to spatial variations in the available energy, insulation by snowpack and ground cover, and the thermal and moisture properties of the soil. The widely used continuous frozen ground index (CFGI) model is a degree-day approach and identifies frozen ground using a simple frost index, which varies mainly with elevation through an elevation-temperature relationship. Similarly, snow depth and its insulatin… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
(65 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The RTI method has been shown to produce better estimates of snow-covered area (SCA) than the TI method for the Senator Beck Basin (SBB) in Colorado (Follum et al, 2015) and had similar accuracy as the TI model in snow water equivalent (SWE) estimation at two observation points for the Sleepers River experimental watershed in Vermont (Follum, Niemann, Parno, & Downer, 2018). However, neither study considered whether the snowmelt hydrograph differed between the TI or RTI approaches.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The RTI method has been shown to produce better estimates of snow-covered area (SCA) than the TI method for the Senator Beck Basin (SBB) in Colorado (Follum et al, 2015) and had similar accuracy as the TI model in snow water equivalent (SWE) estimation at two observation points for the Sleepers River experimental watershed in Vermont (Follum, Niemann, Parno, & Downer, 2018). However, neither study considered whether the snowmelt hydrograph differed between the TI or RTI approaches.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Perhaps these differences are indicative of local differences in spite of the intention that both datasets represent relatively large areas. Note that Follum et al (2018) modeled and measured frost depths at six sites in a small, approximately 3 km by 4 km subbasin of a watershed in Vermont and found significantly different results among the sites over an elevation range of 170 m. In comparison, the NDAWN stations are between 12 and 31 km from the nearest MERRA-2 grid point, and the absolute difference in elevation averages 27 m with a range from 3 to 115 m.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…• Ground cover is not taken into account in MaxFrst. Follum et al (2018) find that the inclusion of insulation by ground cover makes a significant difference in modeled frost depths in their Continuous Frozen Ground Index model. That model does not, however, include soil moisture.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The third approach requires complex numerical solutions outside the scope of a study of this nature. Ground thawing-and freezing-depth models have proven adept at predicting frost depth (e.g., Follum et al 2018); however, linking these model results to infiltration or runoff effects is not straightforward.…”
Section: Fsim Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%