2005
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2005)10:2(133)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors Affecting Estimates of Average Watershed Slope

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is supported by other studies, which showed that reduced DEM resolution negatively affects slope accuracy especially in areas of steep elevation changes as in the Baga watershed (e.g. Chang and Tsai, 1991;Gao, 1997) and cause a systematic underestimation of slope (Hill and Neary, 2005). Nevertheless, from the acquired field knowledge on the watershed it can be concluded that the general slope pattern is well represented.…”
Section: Results Methodssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…This is supported by other studies, which showed that reduced DEM resolution negatively affects slope accuracy especially in areas of steep elevation changes as in the Baga watershed (e.g. Chang and Tsai, 1991;Gao, 1997) and cause a systematic underestimation of slope (Hill and Neary, 2005). Nevertheless, from the acquired field knowledge on the watershed it can be concluded that the general slope pattern is well represented.…”
Section: Results Methodssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The DHS method was used to calculate the slope (in degrees) from a central cell (cell e , in Figure 4) in one of eight directions with the maximum elevation drop (Zhang et al , 1999; Hill and Neary, 2005), i.e. where:…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, the larger number of parameters in SWAT-SSURGO may increase the model prediction uncertainty (Gupta et al, 1999). Given that the soils mainly affect overland hydrologic processes and that the relative importance of channel processes to overland processes increases when moving downstream (Hill and Neary, 2005), it may be that the differences between the streamflows predicted by SWAT-STATSGO and the corresponding values predicted by SWAT-SSURGO would be smaller downstream than at an upstream point within the same watershed. Thus, when the streamflows at downstream points, where the streamflows could be predicted by either SWAT-STATSGO or SWAT-SSURGO with a similar accuracy, are of interest, STATSGO may be superior to SSURGO due to its smaller file sizes and the ease with which the data can be processed by AvSWAT.…”
Section: Statsgo and Ssurgomentioning
confidence: 99%