Impact of Stage Measurement Errors on Streamflow Uncertainty

Abstract

Stage measurement errors are generally overlooked when streamflow time series are derived from uncertain rating curves. We introduce an original method for propagating stage uncertainties due to two types of stage measurement errors: (i) errors of the stage read during the gauging and (ii) systematic and nonsystematic (independent) errors of the recorded stage time series. The error models are generic and can be used for any probabilistic rating curve estimation method that provides an ensemble of rating curves. The new method is applied to a range of six contrasting hydrometric stations in France. Uncertainty budgets quantifying the contribution of various error sources to the total streamflow uncertainty are computed and compared for streamflow time series averaged at time intervals from hour to year. A sensitivity analysis is conducted on the stage time series error model to identify the most sensitive parameters. The results are site specific, which illustrates the key role played by the properties of both the hydrometric site and the gauged catchment. Across the range of sites, stage errors of the gaugings are found to have limited impact on rating curve uncertainty, at least for gaugings performed in fair conditions. Nonsystematic errors in the stage time series have a negligible effect, generally. However, systematic stage errors should not be neglected. Over the six hydrometric stations in this study, the 95% uncertainty component reflecting stage systematic errors (from ±0.5 cm to ±6.8 cm) alone ranged from 4% to 12% of daily average streamflow, and from 1% to 3% of yearly average streamflow as sensors were assumed to be recalibrated every 30 days. Perspectives for improving and validating the streamflow uncertainty estimation techniques are eventually discussed.

Deriving hydrological signatures from soil moisture data

“…Many studies with several types of sensor have shown that the systematic errors vary in time and depend on the soil water content (Schmitz and Sourell, ; Leib et al, ; Merlin et al, ; Tetlock et al, ). Potential future approaches, as previously used for hydrologic error modelling, include a linear model (Horner et al, ) or a model incorporating independent calibration measurements in a Bayesian analysis framework (Le Coz et al, ).…”

A Comparison of Methods for Streamflow Uncertainty Estimation

“…However, this type of approach would also require the development of new tools to compare two uncertain flow records, both containing a mixture of systematic and nonsystematic errors. Horner et al () include discussion of this issue.…”

Automatic Image‐Based Water Stage Measurement for Long‐Term Observations in Ungauged Catchments

“…Comparing the image‐based results to existing traditional measurements, that is, floating gauges, reveals deviations between both methods. However, the source of error cannot be clearly identified because traditional gauges entail errors, as well (Horner et al, ).…”