Mathematical Geology

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 785–809 | Cite as

Estimating monthly streamflow values by cokriging

  • Andrew R. Solow
  • Steven M. Gorelick
Articles

Abstract

Cokriging is applied to estimation of missing monthly streamflow values in three records from gaging stations in west central Virginia. Missing values are estimated from optimal consideration of the pattern of auto- and cross-correlation among standardized residual log-flow records. Investigation of the sensitivity of estimation to data configuration showed that when observations are available within two months of a missing value, estimation is improved by accounting for correlation. Concurrent and lag-one observations tend to screen the influence of other available observations. Three models of covariance structure in residual log-flow records are compared using cross-validation. Models differ in how much monthly variation they allow in covariance. Precision of estimation, reflected in mean squared error (MSE), proved to be insensitive to this choice. Cross-validation is suggested as a tool for choosing an inverse transformation when an initial nonlinear transformation is applied to flow values.

Key words

streamflow estimation cokriging nonstationary covariance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AGU, 1980, Special session on kriging, Fall Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  2. Alley, W. M. and Burns, A. W., 1983, Mixed station extension of monthly streamflow records: J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. Div. Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng., v. 109, no. 2, p. 1272–1284.Google Scholar
  3. Crawford, N. H. and Linsley, R. K. 1966, Digital simulation in hydrology: Technical Report 39, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 45 p.Google Scholar
  4. Delhomme, J. P., 1978, Kriging in the hydrosciences: Adv. Water Resour., v. 1, no. 5, p. 251–266.Google Scholar
  5. Foufoula-Georgiou, E. and Huber, W. C. 1983, Estimating missing values in multivariate hydrologic time series: AGU Fall Meeting, San Fancisco.Google Scholar
  6. Hirsch, R. M., 1979, An evaluation of some record reconstruction techniques: Water Resour. Res., v. 15, p. 1781–1790.Google Scholar
  7. Hirsch, R. M., 1982, A comparison of four streamflow extension techniques: Water Resour. Res., v. 18, p. 1081–1088.Google Scholar
  8. Hoeksema, R. J. and Kitanidis, P. K., 1984, An application of the geostatistical approach to the inverse problem in two-dimensional groundwater modelling: Water Resour. Res., v. 20, p. 1003–1020.Google Scholar
  9. Journel, A. G. and Huijbregts, C. 1978, Mining geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600 p.Google Scholar
  10. Journel, A. G., 1980, The lognormal approach to predicting local distributions of selective mining unit grades: Math. Geol., v. 12, no. 4, p. 285–303.Google Scholar
  11. Kitanidis, P. K. and Vomvoris, E. G., 1983, A geostatistical approach to the inverse problem in groundwater modelling (steady-state) and one-dimensional simulations: Water Resour. Res., v. 19, p. 677–690.Google Scholar
  12. Leclerc, G. and Schaake, J. C., Jr., 1973, Methodology for assessing the potential impact of urban development on urban runoff and the relative efficiency of runoff control alternatives: Rept. 167, Department of Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 45 p.Google Scholar
  13. Matalas, N. C. and Jacobs, B. A., 1964, A correlation procedure for augmenting hydrologic data: U.S. Geol.Sur., Professional Paper 434-E, 12 p.Google Scholar
  14. Neuman, S. P., 1984, Role of geostatistics in subsurface hydrology:in Geostatistics for natural resources characterization: Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 787–816.Google Scholar
  15. Neuman, S. P. and Jacobson, E. A. 1984, Analysis of nonintrinsic spatial variability by residual kriging with application to regional groundwater levels: Math. Geol., v. 16, p. 499–521.Google Scholar
  16. Riggs, H. C., 1972, Low-flow investigations: U.S. Geol. Sur. Tech. Water Resour. Invest., v. 4, 28. p.Google Scholar
  17. Stedinger, J. R., 1980, Fitting lognormal distributions to hydrologic data: Water Resour. Res., v. 16, p. 481–490.Google Scholar
  18. Tabios, G. Q. and Salas, J. D., 1985, A comparative analysis of techniques for spatial interpolation of precipitation: Water Resour. Bull., 21, p. 365–380.Google Scholar
  19. Volpi, G. and Gambolati, G. 1978, Groundwater contour mapping in Venice by stochastic interpolators: Water Resour. Res., v. 15, p. 281–290.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew R. Solow
    • 1
  • Steven M. Gorelick
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyMenlo Park

Personalised recommendations