4.7 Article

An intercomparison of remote sensing river discharge estimation algorithms from measurements of river height, width, and slope

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 4527-4549

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015WR018434

关键词

discharge algorithms; remote sensing of rivers; SWOT

资金

  1. NASA SWOT Science Definition Team [NNX13AD96G, NNX13AD88G]
  2. NASA Terrestrial Hydrology Program [NNX13AD05G]
  3. NASA SWOT Algorithm Definition Team
  4. CNES SWOT Science Definition Team
  5. NASA [NNX13AD05G, 475250, NNX13AD96G, 475379, NNX13AD88G, 475259] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite mission planned for launch in 2020 will map river elevations and inundated area globally for rivers >100 m wide. In advance of this launch, we here evaluated the possibility of estimating discharge in ungauged rivers using synthetic, daily remote sensing measurements derived from hydraulic models corrupted with minimal observational errors. Five discharge algorithms were evaluated, as well as the median of the five, for 19 rivers spanning a range of hydraulic and geomorphic conditions. Reliance upon a priori information, and thus applicability to truly ungauged reaches, varied among algorithms: one algorithm employed only global limits on velocity and depth, while the other algorithms relied on globally available prior estimates of discharge. We found at least one algorithm able to estimate instantaneous discharge to within 35% relative root-mean-squared error (RRMSE) on 14/16 nonbraided rivers despite out-of-bank flows, multichannel planforms, and backwater effects. Moreover, we found RRMSE was often dominated by bias; the median standard deviation of relative residuals across the 16 nonbraided rivers was only 12.5%. SWOT discharge algorithm progress is therefore encouraging, yet future efforts should consider incorporating ancillary data or multialgorithm synergy to improve results.

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