EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 53 (2018) E3S Web Conf., 53 (2018) 03035 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 53, 2018
2018 3rd International Conference on Advances in Energy and Environment Research (ICAEER 2018)
Article Number 03035
Number of page(s) 8
Section Environment Engineering, Environmental Safety and Detection
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20185303035
Published online 14 September 2018
  1. Wharton, G. Progress in the use of drainage network indices for rainfall-runoff modelling and runoff prediction. Progress in Physical Geography. 18, 539-557(1994) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhi-Yong Yin, Xinhao Wang. A cross - scale comparison of drainage basin characteristics derived from digital elevation models. Earth Surface Processes & Landforms. 24(6), 557-562(1999) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Paz, A. R. D., Collischonn, W., Risso, A., & Mendes, C. A. B. Errors in river lengths derived from raster digital elevation models. Computers & Geosciences, 34(11), 1584-1596(2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Peñas, F. J., Fernández, F., Calvo, M., Barquín, J., & Pedraz, L. Influence of data sources and processing methods on theoretical river network quality. Limnetica, 30(2), 197-216(2011) [Google Scholar]
  5. Olivera, F. Extracting hydrologic information from spatial data for hms modeling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 6(6), 524-530 (2001) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Olivera, F., Valenzuela, M., Srinivasan, R., Choi, J., Cho, H., & Koka, S., et al. Arcgis-swat: a geodata model and gis interface for swat 1. Jawra Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42(2), 295-309(2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Reed, S. M. Deriving flow directions for coarseresolution (1-4 km) gridded hydrologic modeling. Water Resources Research, 39(9), 161-175(2003) [Google Scholar]
  8. Quinn, P., Beven, K., Chevallier, P., & Planchon, O. The prediction of hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological modelling using digital terrain models. Hydrological Processes, 5(1), 59-79(1991) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Maidment D. ArcHydro: GIS for Water Resources, ESRI Press. Redlands, California. (2002) [Google Scholar]
  10. Miller D. Programs for DEM Analysis. Earth System Institute. Seattle, WA. 38 pp. (2003) [Google Scholar]
  11. Cho S M, Lee M W. Sensitivity considerations when modeling hydrologic processes with digital elevation model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 37 (4): 931-934(2001) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kenward, T., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., & Fielding, E. Effects of digital elevation model accuracy on hydrologic predictions. Remote Sensing of Environment, 74(3), 432-444(2000) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hao, Z. C., & Jiangsu, N. The effect of spatial resolution and sampling method on the watershed features derived from dem. Journal of Glaciology & Geocryology, 26(5), 610-616(2004) [Google Scholar]
  14. Wu X F, Liu C M and Wang Z G. Effect of horizontal resolution of raster DEM on drainage basin charscteristics. Journal of Natural Resources. 18(2): 148-155(2003) [Google Scholar]
  15. Yi W H, Zhang J M, Kuang Y S, Mi L N. Effect of Horizontal Resolution on the Watershed Features Derived from DEM. Geography and Geo-Information Science. 23(2): 34-38(2007) [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu L, Wang Z Y, YU G A et al. Statistical features of the drainage network in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and the effect of the uplift. Journal of Tsinghua University. 55 (9): 964-970(2015) [Google Scholar]
  17. Ma J P. Quantitative study geomorphic indices and planation surfaces of the Taohe drainage system based on DEM. Lanzhou University. (2017) [Google Scholar]
  18. Zhao, Y., & Ding, A. A decision classifier to classify rivers for river management based on their structure in china: an example from the yongding river. Water Science & Technology A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 74(7), 1539(2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Walker. J. P. and Willgoose. G R. On the effect of digital elevation model accuracy on hydrology and geomorphology. Water Resources Research. 35 (7): 2259-2268(1999) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Wolock, D. M., & Mccabe, G. J. Differences in topographic characteristics computed from 100 - and 1000 - m resolution digital elevation model data. Hydrological Processes, 14(6), 987-1002(2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Yang J L. The research of watershed characteristics based on multi-scaled digital elevation model. Fuzhou University (2010) [Google Scholar]
  22. Sun A L, Yu Z B and Yang C G. Impact factors of contribution area threshold in extractingdrainage network for rivers in China. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 44(8): 901-908 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindsay, J. B. The practice of DEM stream burning revisited. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 41(5), 658-668(2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Veitzer, S. A., & Gupta, V. K. Random self - similar river networks and derivations of generalized horton laws in terms of statistical simple scaling. Water Resources Research, 36(36), 1033-1048(2000) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang L, Fu X D, Wang G Q, et al. Structural selfsimilarity of river networks in the Middle Yellow River basin. Journal of Tsinghua University. 53(1): 24-28(2013) [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhong Y, Jin C J and Pei T P. Statistical selfsimilarity of channel networks in Zagunao River catchments. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology. 17(11): 2132(2006) [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu H X and Wang Z Y. Morphological feature and distribution of typical river networks. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 38(11): 1354-1357(2007) [Google Scholar]
  28. Abrahams, A. D. (1984). Channel networks: a geomorphological perspective. Water Resources Research, 20(2), 161-188(1984) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.