Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics

, Volume 127, Issue 3, pp 241–256 | Cite as

Adjustment to rainfall measurement undercatch with a tipping-bucket rain gauge using ground-level manual gauges

  • G. B. Mekonnen
  • S. Matula
  • F. Doležal
  • J. Fišák
Original Paper

Abstract

Wind-caused undercatch is an important factor among types of systematic errors in point measurements of rainfall. The daily amount of rainfall measured by a MR3H tipping-bucket rain gauge (TBR-MR3H), which is elevated above the ground surface, was considerably underestimated on average by 46 % when compared with the corresponding measurements done by a pair of ground-level manual gauges (M-Rs). The undercatch was also confirmed by the measurements using a set of microlysimeters (MLs). The daily rainfall totals measured by the manual rain gauge were used as a reference in adjusting the rainfall undercatch with the tipping-bucket rain gauge. A simplified equation, developed based on the relationship between logarithmic wind profile and its effect on the catch ratio (CR) of the two gauges, was used to calculate the correction factor on a daily basis. The effect of wind speed depends on the intensity of rainfall. Parameters were optimized, and the proposed equation was validated. The calculated and measured daily rainfall amounts were in good agreement with a correlation coefficient of 0.99, and overall deviation of 0.04.

Keywords

Wind Speed Rainfall Intensity Daily Rainfall Rainfall Amount Rain Gauge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the research program of the Czech University of Life Sciences MSM6046070901 “Sustainable agriculture, quality of agricultural products, sustainable use of natural and landscape resources” and also partly by the EU project EDUWAT (2010-2013) and ‘Aktion’ program. The authors are grateful for the financial support without which this work would not be viable. The authors wish to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for all their helpful discussions and advice. We would like to thank Mr. Austin Weaver (MA) (arwworld@gmail.com) for the English review of this work.

References

  1. Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP (2003) Adjustment of global gridded precipitation for systematic bias. J Geophys Res 108:4257. doi: 10.1029/2002JD002499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allerup P, Madsen H (1980) Accuracy of point precipitation measurements. Nordic Hydrol 11(2):57–70Google Scholar
  3. Benning J, Yang D (2005) Adjustment of daily precipitation data at barrow and Nome Alaska for 1995–2001. Arct Antarct Alp Res 37(3):267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biswas AK (1970) History of hydrology. American Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Boast CW, Robertson TM (1982) A “Micro-Lysimeter” for determining evaporation from bare soil: description and laboratory evaluation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:689–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogdanova EG (1966) Investigation of precipitation measurement losses due to the wind (in Russian). Trans Voyeykov Main Geophys Observ 195:40–62Google Scholar
  7. Černý J, Balík J, Kulhánek M, Vašák F, Peklová L, Sedlář O (2012) The effect of mineral N fertiliser and sewage sludge on yield and nitrogen efficiency of silage maize. Plant Soil Environ 58:76–83Google Scholar
  8. Chvila B, Sevruk B, Ondras M (2005) The wind-induced loss of thunderstorm precipitation measurements. Atmos Res 77:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahlstrom B (1986) The improvement of point precipitation data on an operational basis. Nordic Hydrological Program, NHP-Report No 17, pp 86Google Scholar
  10. Doležal F, Matula S, Moreira Barradas JM (2012) Percolation in macropores and performance of large time-domain reflectometry sensors. J Plant Soil Environ 58(11):503–507Google Scholar
  11. Gourley JJ, Vieux BE (2005) A method for evaluating the accuracy of quantitative precipitation estimates from a hydrologic modeling perspective. J Hydrometeorol 6:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton EL, Andrews LA (1953) Control of evaporation from rain gages by oil. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 34:202–204Google Scholar
  13. Hamon WR (1974) Preliminary report on measurement of precipitation inter-comparisons between the pit gauges and national gauges. International Conference on the Results of the International Hydrological Decade and on Future Programmes in Hydrology. Paris, pp 2–13Google Scholar
  14. Hanson CL, Gebhardt KA, Johnson GL, McFarland MJ, Smith JA (1996) Hydrology Handbook, vol 2. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 5–74Google Scholar
  15. Healy RW, Scanlon BR (2010) Estimating Groundwater Recharge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kampf SK, Burges SJ (2010) Quantifying the water balance in a planar hill slope plot: Effects of measurement errors on flow prediction. J Hydrol 380:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lanza LG, Stagi L (2009) High resolution performance of catching type rain gauges from the laboratory phase of the WMO field intercomparison of rain intensity gauges. Atmos Res 94(4):555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanza LG, Vuerich E (2009) The WMO field intercomparison of rain intensity gauges. Atmos Res 94(4):534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larson LW, Peck EL (1974) Accuracy of precipitation measurements for hydrologic modeling. Water Resour Res 10:857–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Legates DR (1995) Global and terrestrial precipitation—a comparative-assessment of existing climatologies. Int J Climatol 15:237–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Legates DR, Willmott CJ (1990) Mean seasonal and spatial variability in gauge-corrected, global precipitation. Int J Climatol 10:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leimer S, Pohlert T, Pfahl S, Wilcke W (2011) Towards a new generation of high-resolution meteorological input data for small-scale hydrologic modeling. J Hydrol 402:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Looper JP, Vieux BE, Moreno MA (2012) Assessing the impacts of precipitation bias on distributed hydrologic model calibration and prediction accuracy. J Hydrol 418:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Molini A, La Barbera P, Lanza LG, Stag L (2001) Rainfall intermittency and the sampling error of tipping-bucket rain gauges. Phys Chem Earth (C) 26:737–742Google Scholar
  25. Neff EL (1977) How much rain does a rain gauge gage? J Hydrol 35:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nespor V, Sevruk B (1999) Estimation of wind-induced error of rainfall gauge measurements using a numerical simulation. J Atmos Ocean Tech 16:450–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sanford WE, Selnick DL (2013) Estimation of evapotranspiration across the conterminous United States using a regression with climate and land-cover data. J Am Water Resour Assoc JAWRA 49(1):217–230. doi: 10.1111/jawr.12010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Savina M, Schäppi B, Molnar P, Burlando P, Sevruk B (2011) Comparison of a tipping-bucket and electronic weighing precipitation gage for snowfall. Atmos Res. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.06.010 Google Scholar
  29. Seifert A, Beheng KD (2006) A two-moment cloud microphysics parameterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part: maritime vs. continental deep convective storms. Meteorol Atmos Phys 92:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sevruk B (1974) Evaporation losses from containers of Hellman precipitation gauges. Hydrol Sci Bull 19(2):231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sevruk B (1982) Methods of correction for systematic error in point precipitation measurement for operational use. WMO Operational Hydrology Report No. 21, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  32. Sevruk B (1996) Adjustment of tipping-bucket precipitation gauge measurements. Atmos Res 42:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sevruk B, Ondrás M, Chvíla B (2009) The WMO precipitation measurement intercomparisons. Atmos Res 92:376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stisen S, Højberg AL, Troldborg L, Refsgaard JC, Christensen BSB, Olsen M, Henriksen HJ (2012) On the importance of appropriate precipitation gauge catch correction for hydrological modeling at mid to high latitude. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4157–4176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taumann M, Shaw PJR, Van Dijk M (1980) Comparison of the common Australian 203-millimetre rain gauge with the WMO reference pit gauge. Department of Science and Environment, Bureau of Meteorology. Tech Rep 37, pp 17, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  36. Tian XJ, Dai A, Yang DQ, Xie ZH (2007) Effects of precipitation-bias corrections on surface hydrology over northern latitudes. J Geophys Res Atmos 112:D14101. doi: 10.1029/2007JD008420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Upton GJG, Rahimi AR (2003) On-line detection of errors in tipping-bucket rain gauges. J Hydrol 278:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Voisin N, Wood AW, Lettenmaier DP (2008) Evaluation of precipitation products for global hydrological prediction. J Hydrometeorol 9:388–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Meteorological Organization (1984) International Comparison of National Precipitation Gauges with a Reference Pit Gauge. In: Sevruk B, Hamon WR (eds) Instruments and Observing Methods Report No 17, WMO/TD No 38, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. World Meteorological Organization (1994) Guide to hydrological practices: data acquisition and processing, analysis, forecasting and other applications. 5th edn, Chapter 7, WMO-No 168, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. World Meteorological Organization (2008) Guide to meteorological instruments and methods of observation. 7th edn, Chapter 6, WMO-No 8, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Xue M, Wang D, Gao J, Brewster K, Droegemeier KK (2003) The Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS) storm scale numerical weather prediction and data assimilation. Meteorol Atmos Phys 82:139–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang D, Goodison BE, Ishida S (1998) Adjustment of daily precipitation data at 10 climate stations in Alaska: application of World Meteorological Organization intercomparison results. Water Resour Res 34(2):241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. B. Mekonnen
    • 1
  • S. Matula
    • 1
  • F. Doležal
    • 1
  • J. Fišák
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Water Resources, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural ResourcesCzech University of Life SciencesPrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Atmospheric Physics, AS CRPrague 4Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations