Cited by 36Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesGroundwater flow and contamination studiesGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry

Subsurface flow contribution in the hydrological cycle: lessons learned and challenges ahead—a review

Open access
Ghasemizade, Mehdi, Schirmer, Mario·2013·Environmental Earth Sciences

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 · 10.1007/s12665-013-2329-8

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bishop KH (1991) Episodic increase in stream acidity, catchment flow pathways and hydrograph separation, PhD thesis, Univer- sity of Cambridge, 246 pp
  2. Frohlich K, Frohlich W, Wittenberg H (1994) Determination of ground-water recharge by baseflow separation-regional analy- sis in Northeast China. 2nd international conference on flow regimes from international experimental and network data 221:69-75
  3. Pierson TC (1980) Piezometric response to rainstorms in forested hillslope drainage depressions. J Hydrol (New Zealand) 19(1):1-10
  4. Sudicky EA, Jones JP, Brookfield AE, Park YJ (2007) An assessment of the tracer-based approach to quantifying groundwater contri- butions to streamflow-comment-reply. Water Resour Res 43(9):W09602

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghasemizade, M., & Schirmer, M.
Affiliations
University of Neuchâtel (CH)
Corresponding author
Ghasemizade, Mehdi
Venue
Environmental Earth Sciences
Published
2013-03-05
Volume
69
Issue
2
Pages
707-718
ISSN
  • 1866-6280 (ISSN-L)
  • 1866-6299
OpenAlex
W2032417721
Cited by
36
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Earth Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (129735, 200021)
  • Competence Center Environment and Sustainability
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater flow and contamination studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Groundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Keywords
subsurface flow, baseflow, streamflow generation, tracer tests, groundwater-surface water interaction, advection-dispersion, mass balance, low flow, water cycle

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