1,190
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Understanding temporal stability: a long-term analysis of USDA ARS watersheds

, ORCID Icon, , , , , & show all
Pages 1243-1254 | Received 29 Aug 2020, Accepted 10 Jun 2021, Published online: 22 Jun 2021

Figures & data

Figure 1. The location of the seven ARS watersheds over a generalized landcover data layer.

Figure 1. The location of the seven ARS watersheds over a generalized landcover data layer.

Figure 2. Temporal stability plots of (a) Little River, Georgia and (b) Little Washita, Oklahoma. Error bars denote standard deviations of individual sensors’ reported values. Watershed weighted averages represent the overall watershed average, as determined by sensor positions and its’ associated confidence interval.

Figure 2. Temporal stability plots of (a) Little River, Georgia and (b) Little Washita, Oklahoma. Error bars denote standard deviations of individual sensors’ reported values. Watershed weighted averages represent the overall watershed average, as determined by sensor positions and its’ associated confidence interval.

Figure 3. Annual distributions in Reynolds Creek, Idaho. (a) 2004, (b) 2005, and (c) 2006. Error bars denote annual standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Figure 3. Annual distributions in Reynolds Creek, Idaho. (a) 2004, (b) 2005, and (c) 2006. Error bars denote annual standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Table 1. Annual rank correlations for each of the ARS watersheds.

Figure 4. Fort Cobb, Oklahoma, sensor distributions by year. (a) Sensor #6, (b) Sensor #7, (c) Sensor #13. Error bars denote annual standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Figure 4. Fort Cobb, Oklahoma, sensor distributions by year. (a) Sensor #6, (b) Sensor #7, (c) Sensor #13. Error bars denote annual standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Figure 5. Temporal stability plots for Reynolds Creek, Idaho. (a) May, (b) June, (c) July. Error bars denote monthly standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Figure 5. Temporal stability plots for Reynolds Creek, Idaho. (a) May, (b) June, (c) July. Error bars denote monthly standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Table 2. Monthly rank correlation for each ‘warm’ month for each watershed.

Figure 6. Walnut Gulch, Arizona, sensor distributions by month. (a) Sensor #18, (b) Sensor #36, (c) Sensor #2. Error bars denote monthly standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Figure 6. Walnut Gulch, Arizona, sensor distributions by month. (a) Sensor #18, (b) Sensor #36, (c) Sensor #2. Error bars denote monthly standard deviation of reported sensor values.

Figure 7. Triple colocation error for an increasing number of sensors at the South Fork, network.

Figure 7. Triple colocation error for an increasing number of sensors at the South Fork, network.

Table 3. Number of sensors needed to estimate full network average for each watershed. Walnut Gulch is not included in this analysis as no timestamp contain all 54 sensors was available.