• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Water Resources Association >REPLY TO DISCUSSION by John D. Fox, Jr.-'Prediction of Stream Temperature in Forested Watersheds'
【24h】

REPLY TO DISCUSSION by John D. Fox, Jr.-'Prediction of Stream Temperature in Forested Watersheds'

机译：小约翰·D·福克斯（John D.Fox）的讨论-“森林流域的溪流温度预测”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

We thank Dr. Fox for his interest in the paper. He raises three questions related to the sensitivity analysis of stream temperature to buffer characteristics presented in Table 5 of the paper. The first question concerns an apparent contradiction to our statement in the text that the buffer width had little effect upon stream temperature above 30 m whereas the sensitivity analysis showed little difference between 15 m and 30 m. The second question concerns the negative sign of the model sensitivity when bank/canopy distance (buffer setback from the stream bank) increased. The third question concerns the use of a 0-m buffer width as the nominal or reference value for the sensitivity analysis. We believe that all three of these concerns are related, and are to some extent an outgrowth of the use of zero buffer width as the nominal value for the sensitivity analysis presented in Table 5 of the paper. We now believe that this selection was unfortunate, and perhaps misleading, and we have performed the sensitivity analysis using a nominal buffer width of 15 m (nominal values of other buffer characteristics -LAI, tree and canopy height, and bank-canopy distance are the same as in the original analysis). The three river reaches are the same as in Table 5 of the paper. Table 1 summarizes the results of the new sensitivity analysis.
机译：我们感谢Fox博士对本文的关注。他提出了三个与物流温度对缓冲液特性的敏感性分析有关的问题，如表5所示。第一个问题与我们的陈述明显矛盾，即缓冲宽度对30 m以上的流温度几乎没有影响，而灵敏度分析显示15 m与30 m之间的差别很小。第二个问题是当堤岸/树冠距离（来自溪岸的缓冲区后退）增加时模型灵敏度的负号。第三个问题涉及使用0-m缓冲区宽度作为灵敏度分析的标称值或参考值。我们认为，所有这三个方面都是相关的，并且在某种程度上是零缓冲宽度用作表5所示灵敏度分析的标称值的结果。现在，我们认为此选择是不幸的，并且可能会引起误解，并且我们使用标称缓冲区宽度15 m（其他缓冲区特征的标称值-LAI，树和树冠高度以及岸-树冠距离是与原始分析相同）。这三个河段与本文表5相同。表1总结了新的敏感性分析的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号