The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations
Abstract
High‐resolution digital elevation data from two small catchments in the western United States are used to examine the effect of digital elevation model (DEM) grid size on the portrayal of the land surface and hydrologic simulations. Elevation data were gridded at 2‐, 4‐, 10‐, 30‐, and 90‐m scales to generate a series of simulated landscapes. Frequency distributions of slope (tan B), drainage area per unit contour length (a), and the topographic index (a/tan B) were calculated for each grid size model. Frequency distributions of a/tan B were then used in O'Loughlin's (1986) criterion for predicting zones of surface saturation and in TOPMODEL (Beven and Kirkby, 1979) for simulating hydrographs. For both catchments, DEM grid size significantly affects computed topographic parameters and hydrographs. While channel routing dominates hydrograph characteristics for large catchments, grid size effects influence physically based models of runoff generation and surface processes. A 10‐m grid size provides a substantial improvement over 30‐ and 90‐m data, but 2‐ or 4‐m data provide only marginal additional improvement for the moderately to steep gradient topography of our study areas. Our analyses suggest that for many landscapes, a 10‐m grid size presents a rational compromise between increasing resolution and data volume for simulating geomorphic and hydrological processes.
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
BEVEN, K. J., & KIRKBY, M. J. (1979) · Hydrological Sciences Bulletin · doi:10.1080/02626667909491834 · Cited by 6,670
Cited by
Tarboton, D. G. (1997) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/96wr03137 · Cited by 2,476
Evaluation of vertical accuracy of open source Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Mukherjee, S., Joshi, P. K., Mukherjee, S., Ghosh, A., Garg, R. D., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2013) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2012.09.004 · Cited by 394
Physically based modeling in catchment hydrology at 50: Survey and outlook
Paniconi, C., & Putti, M. (2015) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2015wr017780 · Cited by 374
Uncertainties Associated with Digital Elevation Models for Hydrologic Applications: A Review
Wechsler, S. P. (2007) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-11-1481-2007 · Cited by 280
Effects of Digital Elevation Model Accuracy on Hydrologic Predictions
Kenward, T. (2000) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/s0034-4257(00)00136-x · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, W., & Montgomery, D. R.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1994-04
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1019-1028
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2047195451
- Cited by
- 817
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 32.06
- 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: Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/93wr03553
- The paper
- Zhang, W., & Montgomery, D. R. (1994). Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/93wr03553
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.