On the visual detection of non-natural records in streamflow time series: challenges and impacts
-
Published:2023-09-22
Issue:18
Volume:27
Page:3375-3391
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Strohmenger LaurentORCID, Sauquet EricORCID, Bernard Claire, Bonneau Jérémie, Branger FloraORCID, Bresson Amélie, Brigode PierreORCID, Buzier Rémy, Delaigue OlivierORCID, Devers AlexandreORCID, Evin GuillaumeORCID, Fournier Maïté, Hsu Shu-Chen, Lanini SandraORCID, de Lavenne AlbanORCID, Lemaitre-Basset Thibault, Magand Claire, Mendoza Guimarães Guilherme, Mentha Max, Munier SimonORCID, Perrin CharlesORCID, Podechard Tristan, Rouchy Léo, Sadki Malak, Soutif-Bellenger MyriamORCID, Tilmant FrançoisORCID, Tramblay YvesORCID, Véron Anne-Lise, Vidal Jean-PhilippeORCID, Thirel GuillaumeORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Large datasets of long-term streamflow measurements are widely used to infer and model hydrological processes. However, streamflow measurements may
suffer from what users can consider anomalies, i.e. non-natural records that may be erroneous streamflow values or anthropogenic influences that
can lead to misinterpretation of actual hydrological processes. Since identifying anomalies is time consuming for humans, no study has investigated
their proportion, temporal distribution, and influence on hydrological indicators over large datasets. This study summarizes the results of a large
visual inspection campaign of 674 streamflow time series in France made by 43 evaluators, who were asked to identify anomalies falling under five
categories, namely, linear interpolation, drops, noise, point anomalies, and other. We examined the evaluators' individual behaviour in terms of
severity and agreement with other evaluators, as well as the temporal distributions of the anomalies and their influence on commonly used
hydrological indicators. We found that inter-evaluator agreement was surprisingly low, with an average of 12 % of overlapping periods reported as
anomalies. These anomalies were mostly identified as linear interpolation and noise, and they were more frequently reported during the low-flow
periods in summer. The impact of cleaning data from the identified anomaly values was higher on low-flow indicators than on high-flow indicators,
with change rates lower than 5 % most of the time. We conclude that the identification of anomalies in streamflow time series is highly dependent
on the aims and skills of each evaluator, which raises questions about the best practices to adopt for data cleaning.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference51 articles.
1. Alexandrov, G., Ames, D., Bellocchi, G., Bruen, M., Crout, N., Erechtchoukova, M., Hildebrandt, A., Hoffman, F., Jackisch, C., and Khaiter, P.:
Technical assessment and evaluation of environmental models and software, Environ. Model. Softw., 26, 328–336, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.004, 2011. a 2. Andréassian, V., Hall, A., Chahinian, N., and Schaake, J.:
Introduction and synthesis: Why should hydrologists work on a large number of basin data sets?, Large sample basin experiments for hydrological parametrization: results of the models parameter experiment – MOPEX, IAHS Red Books Series no 307, IAHS Press, Wallingford, https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02588687 (last access: 1 June 2023), 2006. a 3. Ayzel, G. and Heistermann, M.:
The effect of calibration data length on the performance of a conceptual hydrological model versus LSTM and GRU: A case study for six basins from the CAMELS dataset, Comput. Geosci., 149, 104708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104708, 2021. a 4. Barthel, R., Haaf, E., Nygren, M., and Giese, M.:
Systematic visual analysis of groundwater hydrographs: potential benefits and challenges, Hydrogeol. J., 30, 359–378, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-021-02433-w, 2022. a, b, c 5. Beven, K. and Westerberg, I.:
On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference, Hydrol. Process., 25, 1676–1680, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7963, 2011. a, b
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|