4.7 Article

River discharge estimation from radar altimetry: Assessment of satellite performance, river scales and methods

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 583, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124561

关键词

Altimetry; River discharge; Rating curves; Manning approach; Arctic rivers

资金

  1. European Space Agency ArcFlux project of the Arctic + ITT
  2. RFBR [18-05-60021-Arctic, 18-01-00465a]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ENVISAT, Jason-2 and -3, Sentinel-3A, CryoSat-2, and AltiKa satellite altimeters were used to estimate the discharge of two Arctic rivers: the Ob and Pur in western Siberia. The accuracy of the water height estimates from ENVISAT varied with river size from 0.63 m for the Ob (similar to 2 km in width) to 1.1 m for the Pur (similar to 0.5 km in width). A new method for water level estimation combining the CryoSat-2, AltiKa, and Sentinel-3A altimeters provided better height accuracy (0.49 m for the Ob). The rating curve method of discharge estimation outperforms the Manning formulation, on the Ob, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 13% vs 20% for daily discharge and 1% vs 5% for annual discharge. Sensitivity analysis performed on the Manning formulation showed high sensitivity to the river depth parameterisation. A functional relationship was identified between the depth of rivers, in the north of western Siberia, and their widths and deposits types. The combination, for the Ob, of the rating curve method with the multi-satellite water level retrieval algorithm provided higher discharge accuracy than previous studies relying on satellite measurements, on numerical modelling or on their combination. A synthesis of worldwide river altimetry studies supported our finding that the accuracy of altimetric discharge estimations decreases for narrower rivers. The rating curve method applied to Jason 2/3 height measurements allows estimation of daily discharges with RMSE of 18% for the wide Ob River but 38% for the narrow Pur River.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据