Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 505

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA): a comparative hydrological approach

Rose, Seth, Peters, Norman E.·2001·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

For the period from 1958 to 1996, streamflow characteristics of a highly urbanized watershed were compared with less‐urbanized and non‐urbanized watersheds within a 20 000 km 2 region in the vicinity of Atlanta, Georgia: in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces of the southeastern USA. Water levels in several wells completed in surficial and crystalline‐rock aquifers were also evaluated. Data were analysed for seven US Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauges, 17 National Weather Service rain gauges, and five USGS monitoring wells. Annual runoff coefficients (RCs; runoff as a fractional percentage of precipitation) for the urban stream (Peachtree Creek) were not significantly greater than for the less‐urbanized watersheds. The RCs for some streams were similar to others and the similar streams were grouped according to location. The RCs decreased from the higher elevation and higher relief watersheds to the lower elevation and lower relief watersheds: values were 0·54 for the two Blue Ridge streams, 0·37 for the four middle Piedmont streams (near Atlanta), and 0·28 for a southern Piedmont stream. For the 25 largest stormflows, the peak flows for Peachtree Creek were 30% to 100% greater than peak flows for the other streams. The storm recession period for the urban stream was 1–2 days less than that for the other streams and the recession was characterized by a 2‐day storm recession constant that was, on average, 40 to 100% greater, i.e. streamflow decreased more rapidly than for the other streams. Baseflow recession constants ranged from 35 to 40% lower for Peachtree Creek than for the other streams; this is attributed to lower evapotranspiration losses, which result in a smaller change in groundwater storage than in the less‐urbanized watersheds. Low flow of Peachtree Creek ranged from 25 to 35% less than the other streams, possibly the result of decreased infiltration caused by the more efficient routing of stormwater and the paving of groundwater recharge areas. The timing of daily or monthly groundwater‐level fluctuations was similar annually in each well, reflecting the seasonal recharge. Although water‐level monitoring only began in the 1980s for the two urban wells, water levels displayed a notable decline compared with non‐urban wells since then; this is attributed to decreased groundwater recharge in the urban watersheds due to increased imperviousness and related rapid storm runoff. Copyright © 2001 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/hyp.218

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rose, S., & Peters, N. E.
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-05-25
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
1441-1457
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W1973747196
Cited by
505
References
0
FWCI
14.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.