The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Single and Multiple Flow Direction Algorithms for Computing Topographic Parameters in TOPMODEL
Abstract
Single flow direction (sfd) and multiple flow direction (mfd) algorithms were used to compute the spatial and statistical distributions of the topographic index used in the watershed model TOPMODEL. An sfd algorithm assumes that subsurface flow occurs only in the steepest downslope direction from any given point; an mfd algorithm assumes that subsurface flow occurs in all downslope directions from any given point. The topographic index in TOPMODEL is ln (a/tan β), where In is the Napierian logarithm, a is the upslope area per unit contour length, and tan β is the slope gradient. The ln (a/tan β) distributions were computed from digital elevation model (DEM) data for locations with diverse topography in Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. The means of the ln (a/tan β) distributions were higher when the mfd algorithm was used for computation compared to when the sfd algorithm was used. The variances and skews of the distributions were lower for the mfd algorithm compared to the sfd algorithm. The differences between the mfd and sfd algorithms in the mean, variance, and skew of the ln (a/tan β) distribution were almost identical for the various DEMs and were not affected by DEM resolution or watershed size. TOPMODEL model efficiency and simulated flow paths were affected only slightly when the ln (a/tan β) distribution was computed with the sfd algorithm instead of the mfd algorithm. Any difference in the model efficiency and simulated flow paths between the sfd and mfd algorithms essentially disappeared when the model was calibrated by adjusting subsurface hydraulic parameters.
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
Seibert, J., & McGlynn, B. L. (2007) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2006wr005128 · Cited by 377
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
Multi-source global wetland maps combining surface water imagery and groundwater constraints
Tootchi, A., Jost, A., & Ducharne, A. (2019) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-11-189-2019 · Cited by 165
Quantifying DEM Uncertainty and its Effect on Topographic Parameters
Wechsler, S. P., & Kroll, C. N. (2006) · Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing · doi:10.14358/pers.72.9.1081 · Cited by 148
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolock, D. M., & McCabe, G. J.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1995-05
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1315-1324
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2165654941
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.78
- 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: Comparison of Single and Multiple Flow Direction Algorithms for Computing Topographic Parameters in TOPMODEL. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/95wr00471
- The paper
- Wolock, D. M., & McCabe, G. J. (1995). Comparison of Single and Multiple Flow Direction Algorithms for Computing Topographic Parameters in TOPMODEL. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/95wr00471
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.