TY - JOUR
T1 - The accuracy of sediment loads when log-transformation produces nonlinear sediment load-discharge relationships
AU - Crowder, D. W.
AU - Demissie, M.
AU - Markus, M.
N1 - This research was conducted by the authors as part of their research supported by the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS), a Division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Illinois State Water Survey. Mean daily discharge and suspended sediment data were obtained from on-line databases the USGS has made available to the public. Bill Saylor, ISWS, graciously helped retrieve and organize the data used to compute the sediment loads. The early review and editing comments from Amy Russell, Laura Keefer, and Eva Kingston, ISWS, are also appreciated. Brad Larson, ISWS, also graciously helped create the map showing gaging site locations. We also acknowledge Arthur Horowitz (USGS) who provided comments that improved the paper.
PY - 2007/4/7
Y1 - 2007/4/7
N2 - Most sediment loads are estimated from sediment-rating curves created by performing a linear least-square regression on log-transformed sediment load-discharge data. When log-transformed sediment load-discharge data plots result in concave or convex curves, such regressions under- or overestimate sediment loads. Conflicting results exist regarding the accuracy/utility of using nonlinear regression to estimate loads. A nonlinear regression technique (optimized/constrained two different ways) was compared with the linear regression method at 26 United States Geological Survey gaging stations throughout the Upper Mississippi River basin. Sensitivity analyses were conducted at two stations, one having a concave sediment load-discharge plot and one having a convex sediment load-discharge plot, to determine each rating curve's ability, based on varying amounts of data, to predict annual and cumulative suspended sediment yields. With a 5-year calibration dataset, a nonlinear maximized r2 statistic curve produced the best estimates for a station with a convex sediment load-discharge relationship, while a nonlinear load-constrained curve produced the best estimates for a station with a concave sediment load-discharge relationship. At both stations (using 5-year calibration datasets), annual yield errors ranged from -54% to 112%, while 15- and 18-year cumulative yield errors ranged from about -21% to 13%.
AB - Most sediment loads are estimated from sediment-rating curves created by performing a linear least-square regression on log-transformed sediment load-discharge data. When log-transformed sediment load-discharge data plots result in concave or convex curves, such regressions under- or overestimate sediment loads. Conflicting results exist regarding the accuracy/utility of using nonlinear regression to estimate loads. A nonlinear regression technique (optimized/constrained two different ways) was compared with the linear regression method at 26 United States Geological Survey gaging stations throughout the Upper Mississippi River basin. Sensitivity analyses were conducted at two stations, one having a concave sediment load-discharge plot and one having a convex sediment load-discharge plot, to determine each rating curve's ability, based on varying amounts of data, to predict annual and cumulative suspended sediment yields. With a 5-year calibration dataset, a nonlinear maximized r2 statistic curve produced the best estimates for a station with a convex sediment load-discharge relationship, while a nonlinear load-constrained curve produced the best estimates for a station with a concave sediment load-discharge relationship. At both stations (using 5-year calibration datasets), annual yield errors ranged from -54% to 112%, while 15- and 18-year cumulative yield errors ranged from about -21% to 13%.
KW - Linear regression
KW - Nonlinear regression
KW - Regression analysis
KW - Sediment-rating curve
KW - Suspended sediment
KW - Upper Mississippi River basin
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947105981&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947105981&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.12.024
DO - 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.12.024
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:33947105981
SN - 0022-1694
VL - 336
SP - 250
EP - 268
JO - Journal of Hydrology
JF - Journal of Hydrology
IS - 3-4
ER -