Cited by 33Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesSoil erosion and sediment transportFlood Risk Assessment and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Modelling impacts of agricultural practice on flood peaks in upland catchments: An application of the distributed TOPMODEL

Gao, Jihui, Holden, Joseph, Kirkby, Mike·2017·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

Upland agricultural land management activities such as grazing, vegetation burning, and bare ground restoration impact hydrological elements of headwater catchments, many of which may be important for downstream flood peaks (e.g., overland flow and soil water storage). However, there is poor understanding of how these management practices affect river flow peaks during high magnitude rainfall events. Using the distributed TOPMODEL, spatial configurations of land management were modelled to predict flood response in an upland catchment, which contains different regions operating subsidized agricultural stewardship schemes. Heavy grazing leading to soil compaction and loss of vegetation cover in stewardship regions covering 79.8% of the catchment gave a 42‐min earlier flow peak, which was 82.2% higher (under a 1‐hr 15‐mm storm) than the current simulated hydrograph. Light grazing over the same regions of the catchment had much less influence on river flow peaks (18 min earlier and 32.9% increase). Rotational burning (covering 8.8% of the catchment), most of which is located in the headwater areas, increased the peak by 3.2% in the same rainfall event. Vegetation restoration with either Eriophorum or Sphagnum (higher density) in bare areas (5.8%) of the catchment provided a reduction of flood peak (3.9% and 5.2% in the 15‐mm storm event), whereas the same total area revegetated with Sphagnum in riparian regions delivered a much larger decrease (15.0%) in river flow peaks. We sho…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hyp.11355

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wildfires alter stream flow response to precipitation.

    “Wildfires alter stream flow response to precipitation (Gao et al., 2017; Hallema, Sun, Bladon, et al., 2017; Hallema, Sun, Caldwell, et al., 2017; Shakesby & Doerr, 2006), and mobilize a variety of pollutants through downwind deposition or subsequent runoff.”
  • Wildfires mobilize a variety of pollutants through downwind deposition or subsequent runoff.

    “Wildfires alter stream flow response to precipitation (Gao et al., 2017; Hallema, Sun, Bladon, et al., 2017; Hallema, Sun, Caldwell, et al., 2017; Shakesby & Doerr, 2006), and mobilize a variety of pollutants through downwind deposition or subsequent runoff.”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 10.5194/hess-16-2299-2012 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/hyp.3360060305 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1080/02626667909491834 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/0022-1694(84)90159-8 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/1752-1688.12294 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.051 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.014 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00085-2 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/hyp.10408 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/2015WR017667 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.012 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.005 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.001 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60088-4 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.03.005 · DOI
  16. 10.1098/rsta.2005.1671 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/hyp.1014 · DOI
  18. 10.1029/2002WR001956 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.01.003 · DOI
  20. 10.1029/2007WR006052 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.002 · DOI
  22. 10.1002/hyp.9875 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/2014WR016782 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199707)11:9<1087::AID-HYP546>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI
  25. Lane S. N., 2003, Global warming in a Yorkshire context
  26. 10.1002/hyp.9285 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04317.x · DOI
  28. 10.1002/hyp.7157 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/esp.1352 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.033 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00240.x · DOI
  32. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2011.00291.x · DOI
  33. 10.1002/hyp.3360050106 · DOI
  34. 10.1002/2017WR020723 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2005)10:4(270) · DOI
  36. Shaw S. C. Wheeler B. D. Kirby P. Phillipson P. &Edmunds R. (1996).Literature review of the historical effects of burning and grazing of blanket bog and upland wet heath. English Nature.
  37. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01222.x · DOI
  38. Zhao Y. (2007).Livestock impacts on hydrological connectivity. PhD Thesis School of Geography The University of Leeds.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gao, J., Holden, J., & Kirkby, M.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Gao, Jihui
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-10-05
Volume
31
Issue
23
Pages
4206-4216
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W2755968063
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hydrological Processes (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Keywords
flood peaks, upland catchments, agricultural land management, grazing, revegetation, peat moss, cottongrass, soil compaction, headwater catchments, surface runoff, soil water storage, riparian zones, distributed hydrological model

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