Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Accuracy of precipitation measurements for hydrologic modeling

Larson, Lee W., Peck, Eugene L.·1974·Water Resources Research

Abstract

The use of precipitation data as input for conceptual hydrologic models has enhanced the need for measurements more representative of ‘true’ precipitation. Precipitation input to continuous watershed models is generally some form of mean basin precipitation estimate based on point measurements. Each point measurement can have large catch deficiencies due to wind, especially for solid precipitation. A brief review is made of past results from studies concerned with these deficiencies. New curves based on current studies are presented for wind‐caused gage catch deficiencies for both rain and snow. The results of using gage catch correction factors to adjust precipitation input to a conceptual hydrologic model are presented.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/wr010i004p00857

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Larson, L. W., & Peck, E. L.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
1974-08
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
857-863
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W2150798600
Cited by
272
References
0
FWCI
3.11
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: Accuracy of precipitation measurements for hydrologic modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/wr010i004p00857
The paper
Larson, L. W., & Peck, E. L. (1974). Accuracy of precipitation measurements for hydrologic modeling. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/wr010i004p00857

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.