Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrating the LISFLOOD‐FP 2D hydrodynamic model with the CAESAR model: implications for modelling landscape evolution

Open access
Coulthard, Tom J., Neal, Jeff C., Bates, Paul D., Ramirez, Jorge, de Almeida, Gustavo A. M., Hancock, Greg R.·2013·Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
DOI 10.1002/esp.3478
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Landscape evolution models (LEMs) simulate the geomorphic development of river basins over long time periods and large space scales (100s–1000s of years, 100s of km 2). Due to these scales they have been developed with simple steady flow models that enable long time steps (e.g. years) to be modelled, but not shorter term hydrodynamic effects (e.g. the passage of a flood wave). Nonsteady flow models that incorporate these hydrodynamic effects typically require far shorter time steps (seconds or less) and use more expensive numerical solutions hindering their inclusion in LEMs. The recently developed LISFLOOD‐FP simplified 2D flow model addresses this issue by solving a reduced form of the shallow water equations using a very simple numerical scheme, thus generating a significant increase in computational efficiency over previous hydrodynamic methods. This leads to potential convergence of computational cost between LEMs and hydrodynamic models, and presents an opportunity to combine such schemes. This paper outlines how two such models (the LEM CAESAR and the hydrodynamic model LISFLOOD‐FP) were merged to create the new CAESAR‐Lisflood model, and through a series of preliminary tests shows that using a hydrodynamic model to route flow in an LEM affords many advantages. The new model is fast, computationally efficient and has a stronger physical basis than a previous version of the CAESAR model. For the first time it allows hydrodynamic effects (tidal flows, lake filling, alluvial fans blocking valley floor) to be represented in an LEM, as well as producing noticeably different results to steady flow models. This suggests that the simplification of using steady flow in existing LEMs may bias their findings significantly. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/esp.3478

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Coulthard, T. J., Neal, J. C., Bates, P. D., Ramirez, J., de Almeida, G. A. M., & Hancock, G. R.
Venue
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-30
Volume
38
Issue
15
Pages
1897-1906
ISSN
  • 0197-9337 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9837
DOI
10.1002/esp.3478
OpenAlex
W2104348614
Cited by
295
References
28
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.