A comparison of tools for measuring discharge rates in a sandy streambed was conducted along a transect near the north bank of the Grindsted Å (stream), Denmark. Four tools were evaluated at six locations spaced 3 m apart in the stream: mini‐piezometers, streambed point velocity probes (SBPVPs), temperature profilers, and seepage meters. Comparison of the methods showed that all identified a similar trend of low to high groundwater discharges moving westward along the transect. Furthermore, it was found that the differences between discharges estimated from Darcy calculations (using the mini‐pizometers), and SBPVPs were not statistically different from zero, at the 90% confidence level. Seepage meter estimates were consistently lower than those of the other two methods, but compared more reasonably with the application of a correction factor of 1.7, taken from the literature. In contrast, discharges estimated from temperature profiling (to a depth of 40 cm) were found to be about an order of magnitude less than those determined with the other methods, possibly due to interferences from horizontal hyporheic flow. Where the various methods produced statistically different discharge estimations at the same location, it is hypothesized that the differences arose from method‐specific sources of bias, including installation depths. On the basis of this work, practitioners interested in measuring flow across the groundwater‐surface water interface achieve the least variability with seepage meters and the SBPVP. However the accuracy of the seepage meter depended on a calibrated correction factor while that of the SBPVP did not.

中文翻译：

---

估算地下水-地表水交换量的工具和方法的比较

沿着GrindstedÅ北岸附近的样带进行了对比，以测量沙质流化床中的排放速率的工具（流），丹麦。在河流中相距3 m的六个位置对四种工具进行了评估：微型测井仪，流床点速度探头（SBPVP），温度剖面仪和渗漏计。方法的比较表明，所有方法都确定了沿样条线向西移动的低至高地下水排放趋势。此外，还发现在90％的置信度下，通过达西计算（使用微型测压计）估算的流量与SBPVP之间的差异在统计学上不为零。渗流计的估算值始终低于其他两种方法，但与文献中的校正因子1.7相比更加合理。相反，根据温度曲线（至40厘米深）估算的流量大约比其他方法确定的流量小一个数量级，这可能是由于水平流水的干扰所致。如果在同一个位置上各种方法在统计上得出的排放量估计值不同，则可以假设差异是由特定于方法的偏差源引起的，包括安装深度。在这项工作的基础上，对通过地下水-地表水界面测量流量感兴趣的从业人员使用渗漏计和SBPVP可以实现最小的可变性。但是，渗水仪的精度取决于校准的校正因子，而SBPVP的精度与校正因子无关。可能是由于水平水流的干扰。如果在同一个位置上各种方法在统计上得出的排放量估计值不同，则可以假设差异是由特定于方法的偏差源引起的，包括安装深度。在这项工作的基础上，对通过地下水-地表水界面测量流量感兴趣的从业人员使用渗漏计和SBPVP可以实现最小的可变性。但是，渗水仪的精度取决于校准的校正因子，而SBPVP的精度与校正因子无关。可能是由于水平水流的干扰。如果在同一个位置上各种方法在统计上得出的排放量估计值不同，则可以假设差异是由特定于方法的偏差源引起的，包括安装深度。在这项工作的基础上，对通过地下水-地表水界面测量流量感兴趣的从业人员使用渗漏计和SBPVP可以实现最小的可变性。但是，渗水仪的精度取决于校准的校正因子，而SBPVP的精度与校正因子无关。对通过地下水-地表水界面的流量进行测量感兴趣的从业人员，使用渗漏计和SBPVP可以实现最小的可变性。但是，渗水仪的精度取决于校准的校正因子，而SBPVP的精度与校正因子无关。对通过地下水-地表水界面的流量进行测量感兴趣的从业人员，使用渗漏计和SBPVP可以实现最小的可变性。但是，渗水仪的精度取决于校准的校正因子，而SBPVP的精度与校正因子无关。