CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Chapter 5 Geostatistical Simulation and Error Propagation in Geomorphometry

Temme, A.J.A.M., Heuvelink, G.B.M., Schoorl, J.M., Claessens, L.·2009·Developments in Soil Science
DOI 10.1016/s0166-2481(08)00005-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0166-2481(08)00005-6

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Aerts, 2003, Accounting for spatial uncertainty in optimization with spatial decision support systems, Transactions in GIS, 7, 211, 10.1111/1467-9671.00141 · DOI
  2. Bolstad, 1994, An evaluation of DEM accuracy: elevation, slope and aspect, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 60, 1327
  3. Carrara, 1997, Comparison of techniques for generating digital terrain models from contour lines, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 11, 451, 10.1080/136588197242257 · DOI
  4. Desmet, 1997, Effects of interpolation errors on the analysis of DEMs, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 22, 563, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199706)22:6<563::AID-ESP713>3.0.CO;2-3 · DOI
  5. Endreny, 2001, Representing elevation uncertainty in runoff modelling and flowpath mapping, Hydrological Processes, 15, 2223, 10.1002/hyp.266 · DOI
  6. Fisher, 1998, Improved modeling of elevation error with geostatistics, GeoInformatica, 2, 215, 10.1023/A:1009717704255 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Fisher, 2006, Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models, Progress in Physical Geography, 30, 467, 10.1191/0309133306pp492ra · DOI · Paper page
  8. Goovaerts, 1997, Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation, 10.1093/oso/9780195115383.001.0001 · DOI
  9. Holmes, 2000, Error in a USGS 30m digital elevation model and its impact on digital terrain modeling, Journal of Hydrology, 233, 154, 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00229-8 · DOI
  10. Holmgren, 1994, Multiple flow direction algorithms for runoff modeling in grid based elevation models — an empirical-evaluation, Hydrological Processes, 8, 327, 10.1002/hyp.3360080405 · DOI
  11. Hunter, 1997, Modeling the uncertainity of slope and aspect estimates derived from spatial databases, Geographical Analysis, 29, 35, 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1997.tb00944.x · DOI
  12. Karssenberg, 2005, Dynamic environmental modelling in GIS: 2. Modelling error propagation, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 19, 623, 10.1080/13658810500104799 · DOI
  13. Kyriakidis, 1999, Geostatistics for conflation and accuracy assessment of digital elevation models, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 13, 677, 10.1080/136588199241067 · DOI
  14. Lindsay, 2006, Distinguishing actual and artefact depressions in digital elevation data, Computers & Geosciences, 32, 1192, 10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.002 · DOI
  15. Oksanen, 2006, Uncovering the statistical and spatial characteristics of fine toposcale DEM error, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20, 345, 10.1080/13658810500433891 · DOI
  16. Planchon, 2001, A fast, simple and versatile algorithm to fill the depressions of digital elevation models, Catena, 46, 159, 10.1016/S0341-8162(01)00164-3 · DOI
  17. Schoorl, 2000, Three dimensional landscape process modelling: the effect of DEM resolution, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25, 1025, 10.1002/1096-9837(200008)25:9<1025::AID-ESP116>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI
  18. Temme, 2006, An algorithm for dealing with depressions in dynamic landscape evolution models, Computers & Geosciences, 32, 452, 10.1016/j.cageo.2005.08.001 · DOI
  19. Van Niel, 2004, Effect of error in the DEM on environment variables for predictive vegetation modelling, Journal of Vegetation Science, 15, 747, 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02317.x · DOI
  20. Van Niel, 2003, Gambling with randomness: the use of pseudo-random number generators in GIS, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17, 49, 10.1080/713811743 · DOI
  21. Weibel, 1995, Adaptive methods for the refinement of digital terrain models for geomorphometric applications, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplementband, 101, 13
  22. Wise, 2000, Assessing the quality for hydrological applications of digital elevation models derived from contours, Hydrological Processes, 14, 1909, 10.1002/1099-1085(20000815/30)14:11/12<1909::AID-HYP45>3.0.CO;2-6 · DOI
  23. Fischer, 2006, Causes and consequences of error in digital elevation models, Progress in Physical Geography, 30, 467, 10.1191/0309133306pp492ra · DOI · Paper page
  24. Goovaerts, 1997, Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation, 10.1093/oso/9780195115383.001.0001 · DOI
  25. Schoorl, 2000, Three dimensional landscape process modelling: the effect of DEM resolution, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25, 1025, 10.1002/1096-9837(200008)25:9<1025::AID-ESP116>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 38

Metadata

Authors
Temme, A. J. A. M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Schoorl, J. M., & Claessens, L.
Venue
Developments in Soil Science
Publisher
Elsevier
Published
2009
Pages
121-140
ISSN
0166-2481
DOI
10.1016/s0166-2481(08)00005-6
Cited by
38
References
0
Language
en

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