The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic tools for mixing models of stream water chemistry
Abstract
Mixing models provide a useful null hypothesis against which to evaluate processes controlling stream water chemical data. Because conservative mixing of end‐members with constant concentration is a linear process, a number of simple mathematical and multivariate statistical methods can be applied to this problem. Although mixing models have been most typically used in the context of mixing soil and groundwater end‐members, an extension of the mathematics of mixing models is presented that assesses the “fit” of a multivariate data set to a lower dimensional mixing subspace without the need for explicitly identified end‐members. Diagnostic tools are developed to determine the approximate rank of the data set and to assess lack of fit of the data. This permits identification of processes that violate the assumptions of the mixing model and can suggest the dominant processes controlling stream water chemical variation. These same diagnostic tools can be used to assess the fit of the chemistry of one site into the mixing subspace of a different site, thereby permitting an assessment of the consistency of controlling end‐members across sites. This technique is applied to a number of sites at the Panola Mountain Research Watershed located near Atlanta, Georgia.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water‐analyses
(1944) · Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union · doi:10.1029/tr025i006p00914 · Cited by 5,593
Isotope Tracers in Catchment Hydrology
(1998) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-10239-8 · Cited by 1,917
Hooper, R. P., Christophersen, N., & Peters, N. E. (1990) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(90)90131-g · Cited by 551
Self-citationChristophersen, N., & Hooper, R. P. (1992) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/91wr02518 · Cited by 508
Self-citationThe Geochemical Behavior of Aluminum in Acidified Surface Waters
Nordstrom, D. K., & Ball, J. W. (1986) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.232.4746.54 · Cited by 249
Bullen, T. D., Krabbenhoft, D. P., & Kendall, C. (1996) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/0016-7037(96)00052-x · Cited by 219
Oxygen and Hydrogen Isotopes in Rainfall-Runoff Studies
Genereux, D. P., & Hooper, R. P. (1998) · Isotope Tracers in Catchment Hydrology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-81546-0.50017-3 · Cited by 176
Self-citationHooper, R. P. (2001) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.255 · Cited by 112
Self-citation
Cited by
Tubau, I., Vàzquez-Suñé, E., Jurado, A., & Carrera, J. (2014) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.121 · Cited by 59
Jung, H. Y., Hogue, T. S., Rademacher, L. K., & Meixner, T. (2009) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.7132 · Cited by 57
Audry, S., Akerman, A., Riotte, J., Oliva, P., Maréchal, J.-C., Fraysse, F., Pokrovsky, O. S., & Braun, J.-J. (2014) · Chemical Geology · doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2014.02.016 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Hooper, R. P.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1614821415
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 6.54
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic tools for mixing models of stream water chemistry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2002wr001528
- The paper
- Hooper, R. P. (2003). Diagnostic tools for mixing models of stream water chemistry. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002wr001528
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.