Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
DOI | 10.1029/2018WR022708 |
A Comparison of Methods for Streamflow Uncertainty Estimation | |
Kiang, Julie E.1; Gazoorian, Chris2; McMillan, Hilary3; Coxon, Gemma4,5; Le Coz, Jerome6; Westerberg, Ida K.7; Belleville, Arnaud8; Sevrez, Damien8; Sikorska, Anna E.9; Petersen-Overleir, Asgeir10; Reitan, Trond11; Freer, Jim4,5; Renard, Benjamin6; Mansanarez, Valentin6,12; Mason, Robert1 | |
2018-10-01 | |
发表期刊 | WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH |
ISSN | 0043-1397 |
EISSN | 1944-7973 |
出版年 | 2018 |
卷号 | 54期号:10页码:7149-7176 |
文章类型 | Article |
语种 | 英语 |
国家 | USA; England; France; Sweden; Switzerland; Norway |
英文摘要 | Streamflow time series are commonly derived from stage-discharge rating curves, but the uncertainty of the rating curve and resulting streamflow series are poorly understood. While different methods to quantify uncertainty in the stage-discharge relationship exist, there is limited understanding of how uncertainty estimates differ between methods due to different assumptions and methodological choices. We compared uncertainty estimates and stage-discharge rating curves from seven methods at three river locations of varying hydraulic complexity. Comparison of the estimated uncertainties revealed a wide range of estimates, particularly for high and low flows. At the simplest site on the Is&e River (France), full width 95% uncertainties for the different methods ranged from 3 to 17% for median flows. In contrast, uncertainties were much higher and ranged from 41 to 200% for high flows in an extrapolated section of the rating curve at the Mahurangi River (New Zealand) and 28 to 101% for low flows at the Taf River (United Kingdom), where the hydraulic control is unstable at low flows. Differences between methods result from differences in the sources of uncertainty considered, differences in the handling of the time-varying nature of rating curves, differences in the extent of hydraulic knowledge assumed, and differences in assumptions when extrapolating rating curves above or below the observed gaugings. Ultimately, the selection of an uncertainty method requires a match between user requirements and the assumptions made by the uncertainty method. Given the significant differences in uncertainty estimates between methods, we suggest that a clear statement of uncertainty assumptions be presented alongside streamflow uncertainty estimates. Plain Language Summary Knowledge of the uncertainty in streamflow discharge measured at gauging stations is important for water management applications and scientific analysis. This paper shows that uncertainty estimates vary widely (typically up to a factor of 4) when comparing seven recently introduced estimation methods. A clear understanding of the assumptions underpinning different uncertainty estimation methods and the sources of uncertainty included in their calculations is needed when selecting a method and using and presenting its uncertainty estimates. |
领域 | 资源环境 |
收录类别 | SCI-E |
WOS记录号 | WOS:000450726000004 |
WOS关键词 | RATING-CURVE UNCERTAINTY ; BAYESIAN METHODS ; RIVER DISCHARGE ; FLOOD ; MODEL ; FRAMEWORK ; SEGMENTATION ; PROPAGATION ; CALIBRATION ; PARAMETER |
WOS类目 | Environmental Sciences ; Limnology ; Water Resources |
WOS研究方向 | Environmental Sciences & Ecology ; Marine & Freshwater Biology ; Water Resources |
引用统计 | |
文献类型 | 期刊论文 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/21978 |
专题 | 资源环境科学 |
作者单位 | 1.US Geol Survey, Water Mission Area, 959 Natl Ctr, Reston, VA 22092 USA; 2.US Geol Survey, New York Water Sci Ctr, Troy, NY USA; 3.San Diego State Univ, Dept Geog, San Diego, CA 92182 USA; 4.Univ Bristol, Sch Geog Sci, Bristol, Avon, England; 5.Univ Bristol, Cabot Inst, Bristol, Avon, England; 6.IRSTEA, Hydrol Hydraul, Lyon, France; 7.IVL Swedish Environm Res Inst, Stockholm, Sweden; 8.EDF DTG Dept Water Monitoring, Grenoble, France; 9.Univ Zurich, Dept Geog, Zurich, Switzerland; 10.Statkraft Energi AS, Oslo, Norway; 11.NVE, Oslo, Norway; 12.Stockholm Univ, Dept Phys Geog, Stockholm, Sweden |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Kiang, Julie E.,Gazoorian, Chris,McMillan, Hilary,et al. A Comparison of Methods for Streamflow Uncertainty Estimation[J]. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH,2018,54(10):7149-7176. |
APA | Kiang, Julie E..,Gazoorian, Chris.,McMillan, Hilary.,Coxon, Gemma.,Le Coz, Jerome.,...&Mason, Robert.(2018).A Comparison of Methods for Streamflow Uncertainty Estimation.WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH,54(10),7149-7176. |
MLA | Kiang, Julie E.,et al."A Comparison of Methods for Streamflow Uncertainty Estimation".WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH 54.10(2018):7149-7176. |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。
修改评论