4.7 Article

BAM: Bayesian AMHG-Manning Inference of Discharge Using Remotely Sensed Stream Width, Slope, and Height

Journal

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
Volume 53, Issue 11, Pages 9692-9707

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2017WR021626

Keywords

remote sensing; Bayesian inference; SWOT mission; discharge estimation

Funding

  1. NASA SWOT Science Team grant [NNX16AH82G]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The forthcoming Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) NASA satellite mission will measure water surface width, height, and slope of major rivers worldwide. The resulting data could provide an unprecedented account of river discharge at continental scales, but reliable methods need to be identified prior to launch. Here we present a novel algorithm for discharge estimation from only remotely sensed stream width, slope, and height at multiple locations along a mass-conserved river segment. The algorithm, termed the Bayesian AMHG-Manning (BAM) algorithm, implements a Bayesian formulation of streamflow uncertainty using a combination of Manning's equation and at-many-stations hydraulic geometry (AMHG). Bayesian methods provide a statistically defensible approach to generating discharge estimates in a physically underconstrained system but rely on prior distributions that quantify the a priori uncertainty of unknown quantities including discharge and hydraulic equation parameters. These were obtained from literature-reported values and from a USGS data set of acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) measurements at USGS stream gauges. A data set of simulated widths, slopes, and heights from 19 rivers was used to evaluate the algorithms using a set of performance metrics. Results across the 19 rivers indicate an improvement in performance of BAM over previously tested methods and highlight a path forward in solving discharge estimation using solely satellite remote sensing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available