Comparison of Two Approaces for Determining Ground-Water Discharge and Pumpage in the Lower Arkansas River Basin Colorado 1997-98

Home Browse Search

Table 2. Estimates of mean differences in instantaneous ground -water discharge between portable flowmeters and totalizing flowmeters among fixed effects of method, make, and type [NS, mean is not significantly different from zero at the 5- percent significance level; S, mean is significantly different from zero at the 5- percent significance level; the mean and the standard error can be expressed as a percent difference by multiplying the respective value by 100] Mean Differences Mean Standard error Significance at the 5- percent level Method of portable flowmeter M -C - 0.0109 0.0026 S P -C -.0217 .0025 S M -P .0108 .0027 S Make of totalizing flowmeter BSX -M .0304 .0088 S Type of discharge distribution system CLS-0 .0261 .0082 S Table 3. Estimates of mean differences in instantaneous ground -water discharge between portable flowmeters and totalizing flowmeters for each combination of fixed effects of method, make, and type [NS, mean is not significantly different from zero at the 5- percent significance level; S, mean is significantly different from zero at the 5- percent significance level; the mean and the standard error can be expressed as a percent difference by multiplying the respective value by 100] Discharge distribution type = CLS Discharge distribution type = CLS Make of totalizing flowmeter = M Make of totalizing flowmeter = BSX C .0088 .0067 NS C .0392 .0093 S M -.0022 .0070 NS M .0282 .0094 S P -.0130 .0068 NS P .0174 .0093 NS Estimates of differences among fixed effects are all less than 5 percent and are listed in table 2. The means in this table may be obtained by computing differences using the means in table 1. All the differ- ences in table 2 are significant at the 5- percent level. Estimates of combined effects (that is, effects associated with each different combination of levels of the fixed factors) are listed in table 3. For example, for type O distribution systems and make M TFM's, method P portable flowmeters have a mean difference of about -3.9 percent, and mean differences are negative for other methods as well. Differences for make (B, S, X) and type (C, L, S), however, are all positive, with a mean difference for method C portable flowmeters of about 3.9 percent. Overall, for particular combinations of method, make, and type, mean differences range from about -4 percent to 4 percent. Estimates of the variance components (vari- ances of the site, date, and error random terms) are listed in table 4. The sum of the variance components is 0.002639. The relative magnitude of the three vari- ance components indicates what fraction of the vari- ance of diffQ is associated with each of the random 18 Comparison of Two Approaches for Determining Ground -Water Discharge and Pumpage in the Lower Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, 1997 -98 Standard Significance at Significance at Method Mean the 5- percent Method Mean Standard error the 5- percent error level level Discharge distribution type = O Discharge distribution type = O Make of totalizing flowmeter = M Make of totalizing flowmeter = BSX C - 0.0174 0.0060 S C 0.0130 0.0081 NS M -.0283 .0060 S M .0021 .0080 NS P -.0391 .0060 S P -.0087 .0080 NS Discharge distribution type = CLS Discharge distribution type = CLS Make of totalizing flowmeter = M Make of totalizing flowmeter = BSX C .0088 .0067 NS C .0392 .0093 S M -.0022 .0070 NS M .0282 .0094 S P -.0130 .0068 NS P .0174 .0093 NS Estimates of differences among fixed effects are all less than 5 percent and are listed in table 2. The means in this table may be obtained by computing differences using the means in table 1. All the differ- ences in table 2 are significant at the 5- percent level. Estimates of combined effects (that is, effects associated with each different combination of levels of the fixed factors) are listed in table 3. For example, for type O distribution systems and make M TFM's, method P portable flowmeters have a mean difference of about -3.9 percent, and mean differences are negative for other methods as well. Differences for make (B, S, X) and type (C, L, S), however, are all positive, with a mean difference for method C portable flowmeters of about 3.9 percent. Overall, for particular combinations of method, make, and type, mean differences range from about -4 percent to 4 percent. Estimates of the variance components (vari- ances of the site, date, and error random terms) are listed in table 4. The sum of the variance components is 0.002639. The relative magnitude of the three vari- ance components indicates what fraction of the vari- ance of diffQ is associated with each of the random 18 Comparison of Two Approaches for Determining Ground -Water Discharge and Pumpage in the Lower Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, 1997 -98