Comparison of Three Imputation Methods for Groundwater Level Timeseries

This study compares three imputation methods applied to the field observations of hydraulic head in subsurface hydrology. Hydrogeological studies that analyze the timeseries of groundwater elevations often face issues with missing data that may mislead both the interpretation of the relevant process...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water (Basel) 2023-02, Vol.15 (4), p.801
Hauptverfasser: Meggiorin, Mara, Passadore, Giulia, Bertoldo, Silvia, Sottani, Andrea, Rinaldo, Andrea
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 4
container_start_page 801
container_title Water (Basel)
container_volume 15
creator Meggiorin, Mara
Passadore, Giulia
Bertoldo, Silvia
Sottani, Andrea
Rinaldo, Andrea
description This study compares three imputation methods applied to the field observations of hydraulic head in subsurface hydrology. Hydrogeological studies that analyze the timeseries of groundwater elevations often face issues with missing data that may mislead both the interpretation of the relevant processes and the accuracy of the analyses. The imputation methods adopted for this comparative study are relatively simple to be implemented and thus are easily applicable to large datasets. They are: (i) the spline interpolation, (ii) the autoregressive linear model, and (iii) the patched kriging. The average of their results is also analyzed. By artificially generating gaps in timeseries, the results of the various imputation methods are tested. The spline interpolation is shown to be the poorest performing one. The patched kriging method usually proves to be the best option, exploiting the spatial correlations of the groundwater elevations, even though spurious trends due to the the activation of neighboring sensors at times affect their reconstructions. The autoregressive linear model proves to be a reasonable choice; however, it lacks hydrogeological controls. The ensemble average of all methods is a reasonable compromise. Additionally, by interpolating a large dataset of 53 timeseries observing the variabilities of statistical measures, the study finds that the specific choice of the imputation method only marginally affects the overarching statistics.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/w15040801
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153206719</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A752311805</galeid><sourcerecordid>A752311805</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-974017436530823fbb53347370e0f366c7dabf3b70c2befc9bb92a187b0fec63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkUFLw0AQhRdRsNQe_AcBL3pInc1sssmxFK1CxUvuYbOZtVuSbN1NLP57IxURZw4zPL43DDzGrjksEQu4P_IUBOTAz9gsAYmxEIKf_9kv2SKEPUwlijxPYcY2a9cdlLfB9ZEzUbnzRNFzdxgHNdhJe6Fh55oQGeejjXdj3xzVQD7a0ge1UWk7CuQthSt2YVQbaPEz56x8fCjXT_H2dfO8Xm1jjZkY4kIK4FJgliLkCZq6ThGFRAkEBrNMy0bVBmsJOqnJ6KKui0TxXNZgSGc4Z7enswfv3kcKQ9XZoKltVU9uDBXyFBPIJC8m9OYfunej76fnqkTKIityQJyo5Yl6Uy1Vtjdu8EpP3VBntevJ2ElfyTRBznNIJ8PdyaC9C8GTqQ7edsp_Vhyq7xSq3xTwC73dd3Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2779698033</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Three Imputation Methods for Groundwater Level Timeseries</title><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Meggiorin, Mara ; Passadore, Giulia ; Bertoldo, Silvia ; Sottani, Andrea ; Rinaldo, Andrea</creator><creatorcontrib>Meggiorin, Mara ; Passadore, Giulia ; Bertoldo, Silvia ; Sottani, Andrea ; Rinaldo, Andrea</creatorcontrib><description>This study compares three imputation methods applied to the field observations of hydraulic head in subsurface hydrology. Hydrogeological studies that analyze the timeseries of groundwater elevations often face issues with missing data that may mislead both the interpretation of the relevant processes and the accuracy of the analyses. The imputation methods adopted for this comparative study are relatively simple to be implemented and thus are easily applicable to large datasets. They are: (i) the spline interpolation, (ii) the autoregressive linear model, and (iii) the patched kriging. The average of their results is also analyzed. By artificially generating gaps in timeseries, the results of the various imputation methods are tested. The spline interpolation is shown to be the poorest performing one. The patched kriging method usually proves to be the best option, exploiting the spatial correlations of the groundwater elevations, even though spurious trends due to the the activation of neighboring sensors at times affect their reconstructions. The autoregressive linear model proves to be a reasonable choice; however, it lacks hydrogeological controls. The ensemble average of all methods is a reasonable compromise. Additionally, by interpolating a large dataset of 53 timeseries observing the variabilities of statistical measures, the study finds that the specific choice of the imputation method only marginally affects the overarching statistics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2073-4441</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2073-4441</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/w15040801</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Aquifers ; Autoregressive models ; Comparative analysis ; Comparative studies ; comparative study ; data collection ; Datasets ; Forecasts and trends ; Geology ; Groundwater ; Groundwater levels ; Hydraulics ; Hydrogeology ; Hydrology ; Interpolation ; kriging ; linear models ; Methods ; Missing data ; Piezometric head ; Sensors ; time series analysis ; water table ; Water, Underground</subject><ispartof>Water (Basel), 2023-02, Vol.15 (4), p.801</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 MDPI AG</rights><rights>2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-974017436530823fbb53347370e0f366c7dabf3b70c2befc9bb92a187b0fec63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-974017436530823fbb53347370e0f366c7dabf3b70c2befc9bb92a187b0fec63</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6409-4673</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meggiorin, Mara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Passadore, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertoldo, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sottani, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rinaldo, Andrea</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Three Imputation Methods for Groundwater Level Timeseries</title><title>Water (Basel)</title><description>This study compares three imputation methods applied to the field observations of hydraulic head in subsurface hydrology. Hydrogeological studies that analyze the timeseries of groundwater elevations often face issues with missing data that may mislead both the interpretation of the relevant processes and the accuracy of the analyses. The imputation methods adopted for this comparative study are relatively simple to be implemented and thus are easily applicable to large datasets. They are: (i) the spline interpolation, (ii) the autoregressive linear model, and (iii) the patched kriging. The average of their results is also analyzed. By artificially generating gaps in timeseries, the results of the various imputation methods are tested. The spline interpolation is shown to be the poorest performing one. The patched kriging method usually proves to be the best option, exploiting the spatial correlations of the groundwater elevations, even though spurious trends due to the the activation of neighboring sensors at times affect their reconstructions. The autoregressive linear model proves to be a reasonable choice; however, it lacks hydrogeological controls. The ensemble average of all methods is a reasonable compromise. Additionally, by interpolating a large dataset of 53 timeseries observing the variabilities of statistical measures, the study finds that the specific choice of the imputation method only marginally affects the overarching statistics.</description><subject>Aquifers</subject><subject>Autoregressive models</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>comparative study</subject><subject>data collection</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Forecasts and trends</subject><subject>Geology</subject><subject>Groundwater</subject><subject>Groundwater levels</subject><subject>Hydraulics</subject><subject>Hydrogeology</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Interpolation</subject><subject>kriging</subject><subject>linear models</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Missing data</subject><subject>Piezometric head</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>time series analysis</subject><subject>water table</subject><subject>Water, Underground</subject><issn>2073-4441</issn><issn>2073-4441</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkUFLw0AQhRdRsNQe_AcBL3pInc1sssmxFK1CxUvuYbOZtVuSbN1NLP57IxURZw4zPL43DDzGrjksEQu4P_IUBOTAz9gsAYmxEIKf_9kv2SKEPUwlijxPYcY2a9cdlLfB9ZEzUbnzRNFzdxgHNdhJe6Fh55oQGeejjXdj3xzVQD7a0ge1UWk7CuQthSt2YVQbaPEz56x8fCjXT_H2dfO8Xm1jjZkY4kIK4FJgliLkCZq6ThGFRAkEBrNMy0bVBmsJOqnJ6KKui0TxXNZgSGc4Z7enswfv3kcKQ9XZoKltVU9uDBXyFBPIJC8m9OYfunej76fnqkTKIityQJyo5Yl6Uy1Vtjdu8EpP3VBntevJ2ElfyTRBznNIJ8PdyaC9C8GTqQ7edsp_Vhyq7xSq3xTwC73dd3Y</recordid><startdate>20230201</startdate><enddate>20230201</enddate><creator>Meggiorin, Mara</creator><creator>Passadore, Giulia</creator><creator>Bertoldo, Silvia</creator><creator>Sottani, Andrea</creator><creator>Rinaldo, Andrea</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6409-4673</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230201</creationdate><title>Comparison of Three Imputation Methods for Groundwater Level Timeseries</title><author>Meggiorin, Mara ; Passadore, Giulia ; Bertoldo, Silvia ; Sottani, Andrea ; Rinaldo, Andrea</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-974017436530823fbb53347370e0f366c7dabf3b70c2befc9bb92a187b0fec63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Aquifers</topic><topic>Autoregressive models</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>comparative study</topic><topic>data collection</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Forecasts and trends</topic><topic>Geology</topic><topic>Groundwater</topic><topic>Groundwater levels</topic><topic>Hydraulics</topic><topic>Hydrogeology</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Interpolation</topic><topic>kriging</topic><topic>linear models</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Missing data</topic><topic>Piezometric head</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>time series analysis</topic><topic>water table</topic><topic>Water, Underground</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meggiorin, Mara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Passadore, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertoldo, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sottani, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rinaldo, Andrea</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Water (Basel)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meggiorin, Mara</au><au>Passadore, Giulia</au><au>Bertoldo, Silvia</au><au>Sottani, Andrea</au><au>Rinaldo, Andrea</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Three Imputation Methods for Groundwater Level Timeseries</atitle><jtitle>Water (Basel)</jtitle><date>2023-02-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>801</spage><pages>801-</pages><issn>2073-4441</issn><eissn>2073-4441</eissn><abstract>This study compares three imputation methods applied to the field observations of hydraulic head in subsurface hydrology. Hydrogeological studies that analyze the timeseries of groundwater elevations often face issues with missing data that may mislead both the interpretation of the relevant processes and the accuracy of the analyses. The imputation methods adopted for this comparative study are relatively simple to be implemented and thus are easily applicable to large datasets. They are: (i) the spline interpolation, (ii) the autoregressive linear model, and (iii) the patched kriging. The average of their results is also analyzed. By artificially generating gaps in timeseries, the results of the various imputation methods are tested. The spline interpolation is shown to be the poorest performing one. The patched kriging method usually proves to be the best option, exploiting the spatial correlations of the groundwater elevations, even though spurious trends due to the the activation of neighboring sensors at times affect their reconstructions. The autoregressive linear model proves to be a reasonable choice; however, it lacks hydrogeological controls. The ensemble average of all methods is a reasonable compromise. Additionally, by interpolating a large dataset of 53 timeseries observing the variabilities of statistical measures, the study finds that the specific choice of the imputation method only marginally affects the overarching statistics.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/w15040801</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6409-4673</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2073-4441
ispartof Water (Basel), 2023-02, Vol.15 (4), p.801
issn 2073-4441
2073-4441
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153206719
source MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Aquifers
Autoregressive models
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
comparative study
data collection
Datasets
Forecasts and trends
Geology
Groundwater
Groundwater levels
Hydraulics
Hydrogeology
Hydrology
Interpolation
kriging
linear models
Methods
Missing data
Piezometric head
Sensors
time series analysis
water table
Water, Underground
title Comparison of Three Imputation Methods for Groundwater Level Timeseries
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T05%3A56%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Three%20Imputation%20Methods%20for%20Groundwater%20Level%20Timeseries&rft.jtitle=Water%20(Basel)&rft.au=Meggiorin,%20Mara&rft.date=2023-02-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=801&rft.pages=801-&rft.issn=2073-4441&rft.eissn=2073-4441&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/w15040801&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA752311805%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2779698033&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A752311805&rfr_iscdi=true