Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Chemical and Isotopic Hydrograph Separation

Hooper, Richard P., Shoemaker, Christine A.·1986·Water Resources Research

Abstract

As part of the construction of a simulation model to test an acid precipitation neutralization mechanism, the stream hydrograph was separated into its base flow and event water components using stable environmental isotopes of water, naturally occurring conservative tracer. Three snowmelt events and one storm event during the winter and spring of 1984 were studied at an instrumented watershed in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Conditions for use of the isotopic tracer were not always met, however. During the latter part of the snowmelt and the storm the isotopic content of the groundwater and event water were not distinguishable. Furthermore, the isotopic content of the meltwater varied considerably over time, thereby reducing the precision of the hydrograph separation. Frequent sampling of the meltwater is mandatory to assess this variability. Because the concentration of major cations and anions was measured as well, chemical tracers could be compared to the isotopic tracer, when the isotopic hydrograph separation was reliable, to test whether the chemical tracer was conservative. Dissolved silica was found to act as a conservative tracer for this watershed.

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/wr022i010p01444

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hooper, R. P., & Shoemaker, C. A.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
1986-09
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
1444-1454
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W2012122006
Cited by
377
References
1
FWCI
7.70
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

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.