1989
DOI: 10.1007/bf00279264
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Cl concentration in Cayuga Lake, U.S.A.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…a). The Q dynamics of this stream are a good proxy for overall tributary inputs (Effler et al ) and minerogenic sediment (Peng and Effler ). Particularly large increases in scattering levels were observed at the shelf site after runoff events (e.g., early July event; Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…a). The Q dynamics of this stream are a good proxy for overall tributary inputs (Effler et al ) and minerogenic sediment (Peng and Effler ). Particularly large increases in scattering levels were observed at the shelf site after runoff events (e.g., early July event; Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is the numerical counterpart of the approach followed experimentally by Effler et al . [], who estimated the residence time for Cayuga Lake, where salt mining had led to the introduction of chloride above natural concentrations until 1970. The authors made their estimation by observing the rate at which chloride concentrations decreased after 1970 and by measuring the salt load brought in by the stream flow.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a practical matter, it is difficult to justify the incremental benefit of expanding monitoring (both Q and constituent concentrations) to tributaries that individually represent such small fractions (≤3.5%) of the watershed area. The prorating of tributary flows according to watershed areas of gaged tributaries is supported in this case by the earlier success in modeling long‐term trends for a conservative substance in the lake based on similar prorating protocols (Effler et al ., ). The case for the prorating of Q ‐weighted concentrations for these inputs is less compelling.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%