1982
DOI: 10.3133/wsp2175
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurement and computation of streamflow

Abstract: Estimation of daily discharge for periods of no gage-height record ____ Case A. No gage-height record during a low-or medium-flow recession on an

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
48
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 392 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
48
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Pan et al 2012and Sheffield et al (2009) assumed that the errors in the measured streamflow are inversely proportional to the area of the basins and range from 5 % to 10 %, whereas Di Baldassarre and Montanari (2009) analysed the overall errors affecting streamflow observations and found that these errors range from 6 % to 42 %. In earlier studies, the errors in streamflow measurement were estimated to range from 10 % to 20 % (Rantz, 1982;Dingman, 1994). In the study of Zhang et al (2018), the error ratios of VIC were set to be 5 %.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Pan et al 2012and Sheffield et al (2009) assumed that the errors in the measured streamflow are inversely proportional to the area of the basins and range from 5 % to 10 %, whereas Di Baldassarre and Montanari (2009) analysed the overall errors affecting streamflow observations and found that these errors range from 6 % to 42 %. In earlier studies, the errors in streamflow measurement were estimated to range from 10 % to 20 % (Rantz, 1982;Dingman, 1994). In the study of Zhang et al (2018), the error ratios of VIC were set to be 5 %.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A broad array of gridded model-based runoff estimates are freely available, including but not limited to ECMWF's interim reanalysis (ERA-Interim; Dee et al, 2011), NASA's Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) land dataset (Reichle et al, 2011), the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR; Tomy and Sumam, 2016), the second Global Soil Wetness Project (GSWP2; Dirmeyer et al, 2006), the Water Model Intercomparison Project (WaterMIP; Haddeland et al, 2011), and the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS; Rodell et al, 2004). Recently, the eartH2Observe project has made two ensembles (tier 1 and tier 2) of state-of-the-art global hydrological and land surface model outputs available (http: //www.earth2observe.eu/, last access: 25 April 2018; Beck et al, 2017a;Schellekens et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Streamflow was measured at the six surface-water sites each time water-quality samples were collected using protocols described in Turnipseed and Sauer (2010). Instantaneous streamflow was determined either by direct measurement or from stage-discharge rating tables (Rantz and others, 1982), and the streamflow was used for describing the hydrologic conditions at the time of the discrete samples. All streamflow measurements and continuously recorded data are stored in the USGS NWIS database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017).…”
Section: Data Collection and Laboratory Analysis Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We stored the hourly images in a relational database to facilitate categorizing images into an average daily category. This concept is similar to calculating an average daily discharge from several daily discharge measurements at a continuous stream discharge monitoring station (Rantz, 1982). Categories 1-3 were considered disconnected flow and Categories 4-6 were considered connected flow for metric development.…”
Section: Overview Of Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%