Canadian Water Resources Journal

ISSN: 0701-1784 (Print) 1918-1817 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcwr20

The Influence of Air Temperature on Water

Temperature and the Concentration of Dissolved
Oxygen in Newfoundland Rivers

Richard Harvey , Leonard Lye , Ali Khan & Renee Paterson

To cite this article: Richard Harvey , Leonard Lye , Ali Khan & Renee Paterson (2011) The
Influence of Air Temperature on Water Temperature and the Concentration of Dissolved Oxygen
in Newfoundland Rivers , Canadian Water Resources Journal, 36:2, 171-192, DOI: 10.4296/
cwrj3602849

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3602849

Published online: 23 Jan 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2479

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcwr20
 The Influence of Air Temperature on Water Temperature
and the Concentration of Dissolved Oxygen in
Newfoundland Rivers

Richard Harvey, Leonard Lye, Ali Khan and Renee Paterson

Abstract: In this paper regression models are developed for predicting water temperature and the
concentration of dissolved oxygen in rivers monitored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Real-Time
Water Quality Monitoring (RTWQM) network. The developed models can be used to predict mean,
maximum and minimum water temperatures and dissolved oxygen at the monthly, weekly and daily
time scales. A nonlinear logistic model is found to best represent the S-shaped relationship between
water temperature at the real-time stations and air temperature collected from meteorological stations
5-50 kilometers away. There is a clear tendency for monthly and weekly models to be more accurate for
prediction than the daily models. Both linear and nonlinear exponential decay models were found to best
represent the relationship between water temperature and dissolved oxygen at the real-time stations. A
novel graphical method of linking air temperature to water temperature and dissolved oxygen has been
developed and may prove to be a valuable simple tool in the assessment of the health of the rivers in the
real-time network.

Résumé : Ce papier décrit des modèles de régression qui prédisent la température de l’eau et la concentration
d’oxygène dissous dans les rivières surveillées par le réseau Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador Real-Time Water
Quality. On peut utiliser les modèles développés pour prédire les températures d’eau moyennes, maximales et
minimales et les niveaux d’oxygène dissous dans l’eau aux échelles mensuelles, hebdomadaires et quotidiennes.
Un modèle non-linéaire logistique représente mieux la relation entre la température de l’eau aux stations
en temps réel et la température de l’air provenant des stations météorologiques de 5 à 50 kilomètres de
distance. Il y a une tendance claire pour les modèles mensuels et hebdomadaires d’être plus précis pour la
prédiction que les modèles quotidiens. Les modèles linéaires et non-linéaires de décroissance exponentielle
représentent mieux la relation entre la température de l’eau et l’oxygène dissous aux stations en temps réel. Une
nouvelle méthode graphique de relier la température de l’air à la température de l’eau et l’oxygène dissous a
été développée; cette méthode devrait se révéler un outil précieux et simple pour évaluer la santé des rivières
dans le réseau en temps réel.

Richard Harvey1, Leonard Lye1, Ali Khan2 and Renee Paterson2

1
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5
2
Water Resources Management Division, Department of Environment and Conservation, Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s, Newfoundland A1B 4J6

Submitted May 2010; accepted February 2011. Written comments on this paper will be accepted until
December 2011.

Canadian Water Resources Journal Vol. 36(2): 171–192 (2011) © 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques doi:10.4296/cwrj3602849
172 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques
Introduction
Water temperature is an important indicator of water
quality that regulates a wide range of biological
processes in a river system. Temperature influences
spawning periods, growth rates and mortality rates of
a river’s aquatic inhabitants – the majority of which
tend to be cold-blooded organisms that can only thrive
when water temperatures are within their preferred
thermal range. Shifts in water temperature outside of
that preferred thermal range can adversely affect the
overall health of the aquatic ecosystem. High water
temperatures in the range of 23-25°C have been
shown to increase the mortality rates of a number of
fish species (Lee and Rinne, 1980; Bjorn and Reiser,
1991; Hodgson and Quinn, 2002). Lund et al. (2002)
showed high summer water temperatures to be the
cause of a heat-shock response in juvenile salmonids.
The temperature of a river is governed by the
interaction of natural environmental processes (e.g.
air temperature, solar radiation, conduction from
soil, etc.) and anthropogenic disturbances of the
natural thermal regime such as deforestation and
hydroelectric development (Gras, 1969; Beschta et al.,
1987; Benyahya et al., 2008). In recent years a number
of studies have identified global warming as another
major influence of water temperature (Sinokrot et
al., 1995; Webb, 1996; Mohseni et al., 1998, 1999;
Pedersen and Sand-Jensen, 2007). Eaton and Scheller
(1996) suggest that cold water fish densities in the
United States could decline by as much as 50 percent
if river temperatures rise due to an increase carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Another important indicator of a river’s water
quality is the concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO)
present in the water. The oxygen required by all aquatic
organisms for survival is produced during daylight
hours through photosynthesis and consumed 24 hours
a day through respiration and the decomposition of
organic matter by bacteria and fungi. As a result, the
concentration of DO in a river will be highest during
the day and lower during the night – with the lowest
levels occurring just before sunrise. The concentration
of DO is also known to be influenced by water
temperature - where oxygen has a greater solubility
in colder water than it does in warmer water. As a
result DO levels in a river are higher during the winter
months than during summer. Lower concentrations
during the summer months also result from increased
decomposition of aquatic plants particularily at the end
of the growing season and low streamflow conditions
(Water on the Web, 2010). Concentrations during
the summer months can be forced even lower by the
addition of oxygen-demanding organic matter to the
river system (e.g. sewage, agricultural runoff, lawn
clippings, etc.). As a general rule, the concentration of
DO in a healthy river will be in the range of 8-12 mg/L,
while concentrations in the 0-8 mg/L range have been
shown to adversely affect the feeding, reproduction and
mortality of aquatic fish species (Lloyd, 1961; Silver et
al., 1963; Burton et al., 1980; Kramer, 1987).
The ability to effectively model water temperature
and DO is an essential component in water resource
management. Regression models are developed in
this paper to provide for the effective assessment
and prediction of these two important water quality
parameters for rivers in the Newfoundland and
Labrador Real-time Water Quality Monitoring
(RTWQM) network.
The Newfoundland and Labrador RTWQM
Network
The Newfoundland and Labrador RTWQM network
was established by the Water Resources Management
Division (WRMD) of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Environment and Conservation in
2001. To date, there are currently twenty eight (28)
stations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Regression models are developed for the four stations in
the network solely managed by the WRMD - Humber
River - NF02YL0012, Peter’s River - NF02YO0121,
Leary’s Brook - NF02ZM0178, and Waterford River -
NF02ZM0009 (Figure 1).
Real-time station Humber River (48°58’58” N,
57°45’38” W) is located approximately 12.5 kilometers
from the outlet of the Humber River on the west coast
of the island. The Humber River is the second largest
river system in the province. The headwaters of the
river flow all the way from the highlands of the Long
Range Mountains on the west coast through the deep
and heavily forested river valley into a wide marshy
flood plain where the river drains the surrounding
mountainous areas. The drainage area of the river is
over 7000 square kilometers with forest comprising
the largest portion of this area (62.59%) followed
by lakes (12.47%), wetlands (.9.69%), barren land
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 173
Figure 1. Location of observation stations [solid circles] in Newfoundland and Labrador used in this study.
Shaded areas indicate watershed boundaries.
(7.23%), vegetation (6.88%). Monitoring activities
at the station are of particular importance to the
WRMD as development pressure in the region is high
– with hydroelectric power, municipal consumption,
recreational purposes, solid waste disposal sites, and
over fifty commercial farms in the area (Department
of Environment and Conservation, 2009a). Hourly
measurements of water quality data were available for
this station from December 2003 to April 2008.
Peter’s River (49°6’13” N, 55°23’48” W) is located
in the central lowlands of the province near the small
town of Botwood. The protected water supply area
for the river is approximately 224 square kilometers.
A number of public roads, resource roads, abandoned
railway lines and old trails provide access to almost
all areas of the Peter’s River Basin and the potential
for pollutant contamination to the watercourse has
been previously recognized (Khan, 1996). The river
originally supplied drinking water for the nearby towns
of Botwood and Peterview but this was no longer
the case after 2006 – after which those towns began
relying on another nearby source of water. Hourly
measurements of water quality data collected at the
Peter’s River station were available for the period June
2005 to February 2008 (this station is now permanently
offline).
Leary’s Brook (47°33’51” N, 52°44’54” W) is
located on the east coast of Newfoundland. Leary’s
Brook is an urban water system that runs through a
developed section in the city of St. John’s. The total
drainage area for the system is 19.6 square kilometers.
74.36% of the total drainage area consists of forest
while the remainder is divided between barren land
(12.31%), wetland (6.67%), vegetation (6.15%) and
lakes (0.51%) (Department of Environment and
Conservation, 2009b). The Leary’s Brook station is the
WRMD’s main testing station for real-time technology.
It was the first station brought online in the real-time
network and water quality records for the station date
back to 2002. The equipment at the station is removed
quite often for recalibration, experimentation and
testing – this has resulted in a rather non-continuous
record of data collection. Water quality measurements
collected at the station every 15 minutes for the period
September 2004 to December 2007 were used in this
study.
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
174 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques
Waterford River (47°31’46” N, 52°44’34” W) is
located in the city of St. John’s at a location roughly
thirteen kilometers from the headwaters of the
Waterford River in the town of Paradise. The river
flows through a moderately developed section of
St. John’s and has a total drainage area of roughly
52 square kilometers (57.89% forest, 19.36% barren
land, 11.09% wetland, 10.71% vegetation, 0.75% lakes,
and 0.19% other). Development pressure around the
river is moderate with the majority of development
located in two industrial parks. Highways, city
streets and a number of access roads are dispersed
throughout the basin (Department of Environment
and Conservation, 2009c).
Data Available for Model Development
RTWQM Data
Hydrolab Multiprobe Datasonde real-time monitors are
installed in the rivers so that water temperature, pH,
DO, specific conductance, and turbidity measurements
can be recorded at regular intervals (once every hour
for Humber River, Peter’s River and Waterford River
and once every fifteen minutes for Leary’s Brook).
These real-time monitors are capable of recording
water temperature from -5 to 50°C with an accuracy of
± 0.10°C at a resolution of 0.01°C and DO from 0 to
50 mg/L with an accuracy of ± 0.2 mg/L at a resolution
of 0.01 mg/L (Campbell Scientific, 2009).
The Newfoundland and Labrador RTWQM
program follows strict quality assurance/quality and
control/quality assessment procedures to ensure the
integrity of the collected data. Some of these protocols
are outlined below:
• Sites are assessed on a case-by-case basis to
determine the best possible locations and
deployment methods to achieve desirable and
accurate outcomes. Instruments are deployed
and secured in a manner to ensure the
instrumentation is in flowing water and free
from debris that may compromise the sensors.
• Monitoring probes undergo regular warranty
and servicing checks in compliance with
manufacturer recommendations.
• Personnel are specially trained and qualified to
deploy and maintain the instrumentation.
• Maintenance and calibration procedures are
carried out for all sensors on a regular basis
(i.e. approximately every thirty days) using
certified standard solutions and manufacturer
recommended methods.
• Field readings are taken at the time of removal
and reinstallation for comparison purposes
using a freshly calibrated instrument. Raw data
is then corrected using the values obtained
from the freshly calibrated instrument at the
time of removal by applying a linear correction
over the deployment period.
• A water quality grab sample is taken at the
time of reinstallation and sent to an accredited
laboratory for analysis (the results from
this analysis are then used for comparison
purposes).
• All field information is compiled on specified
field sheets to allow easy access to information.
• Real-time raw data is retrieved and managed
in a specific Oracle database schema.
• Transparency of the data is maintained
through publishing in near real-time on the
Department web page. The Department
also publishes monthly deployment reports
for each station that include any issues with
maintenance/calibration, QA/QC procedures,
data issues, time series graphs, summary
statistics for each parameter, brief explanations
for observed results and data qualification
statements.
Stage Level
Each real-time station is located near Environment
Canada hydrometric monitoring equipment so that
real-time stage level measurements can be paired to
the Datasonde measurements.
Air Temperature
Air temperatures at the real-time stations were
obtained from hourly air temperatures recorded at
nearby Environment Canada meteorological stations.
The distances between the real-time stations and the
meteorological stations are as follows: Humber River –
Corner Brook (15 kilometers), Peter’s River – Badger
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 175

Table 1. Statistical Summary of the Datasets Used for Mean Water Temperature and Dissolved
Oxygen Model Development

Tw (°C) Ta (°C) Stage (m) DO (mg/L)

Station Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Monthly Mean Models for Regression Model Development
Humber 7.1 0.4 17.9 4.9 -9.0 18.1 2.1 1.5 3.3 12.1 8.6 19.5
Peter’s 8.1 -0.1 20.6 4.3 -9.0 17.9 1.1 0.9 1.5 11.0 7.7 13.8
Leary’s 6.9 0.7 16.6 5.1 -3.7 17.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 11.6 6.5 13.9
Waterford 8.1 0.2 17.7 5.9 -5.7 17.1 0.6 0.4 0.9 11.1 6.6 14.2

Weekly Mean Models for Regression Model Development

Humber 7.1 0.3 18.5 5.1 -12.9 20.5 2.1 1.4 3.7 12.1 8.6 19.6
Peter’s 8.3 -0.1 22.5 4.4 -13.8 20.8 1.2 0.9 1.8 11.0 7.0 14.3
Leary’s 6.9 0.2 17.5 5.0 -6.4 18.7 0.8 0.6 1.2 11.5 5.2 14.9
Waterford 8.1 -0.2 18.7 5.9 -9.3 18.7 0.6 0.4 1.1 11.1 6.0 14.9

Daily Mean Models for Regression Model Development

Humber 7.3 0.0 20.1 5.4 -16.6 23.0 2.1 1.3 3.8 12.0 8.5 20.0
Peter’s 8.4 -0.3 27.9 4.6 -19.1 25.5 1.1 0.9 2.3 11.2 7.1 15.0
Leary’s 6.8 0.1 19.1 4.9 -10.9 21.2 0.8 0.6 1.4 10.8 8.7 13.1
Waterford 8.1 -0.2 22.5 5.9 -13.5 21.2 0.6 0.4 1.4 11.1 5.2 15.5

(50 kilometers), Leary’s Brook – St. John’s airport
(5 kilometers), and Waterford River – St. John’s
airport (10 kilometers). Although it would have been
preferable to work with air temperature recorded
directly at the real-time stations, these distances are
similar to those found in the literature. Crisp and
Howson (1982) worked with air temperatures collected
up to 50 kilometers away from their streams, Stefan and
Preud’homme (1993) worked with data collected from 0
to 144 miles away, and Pilgrim et al. (1998) worked with
distances an average of 37.5 kilometers away. There is
currently no way to quantitatively determine the impact
of relying on these meteorological measurements when
developing the models as air temperatures recorded
directly at the RTWQM station are not available. As
such, for this study it was assumed that the available
meteorological data is a close approximation of what
RTWQM station air temperature might be.
15 minutes). MinitabTM macros were written to group
individual measurements (tagged by a timestamp –
i.e. 12/11/2003 2:50) by day, week, and month. The
macro was then used to obtain the mean, maximum
and minimum values for each day, week and month.
A general statistical summary of the datasets used for
mean water temperature and dissolved oxygen model
development is given in Table 1. Seasonal comparisons
of the water quality parameters are presented in Table
2. The size of each river studied in this study varies –
with the Humber River being the largest of the group,
followed by Peter’s River, Leary’s Brook and Waterford
River. As a result the influence of air temperature on
water quality parameters recorded at each station will
be different (i.e. an air temperature of 25 °C will not have
the same impact on water temperatures in the shallower
Leary’s Brook as it will in the deeper Humber River).

Water Temperature Models

Developing Monthly, Weekly and Daily Datasets
The historical records of water quality available for
analysis at each RTWQM each contain over 25,000
rows of hourly data (with the exception of Leary’s
Brook, where measurements are collected every
Models for the prediction and assessment of water
temperature are either empirical (regression based)
or deterministic (physical based). The deterministic
models (Raphael, 1962; Morin et al., 1994; Taylor,
1998) are based on thermal budget calculations that

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

176 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Table 2. Seasonal Comparison of RTWQM Stations

Mean Water Temperature (°C) Air Temperature (°C)

Humber Peter’s Leary’s Waterford Humber Peter’s Leary’s Waterford
River River Brook River River River Brook River
Winter 2.2 0.9 2.1 1.4 -5.3 -6.3 -2.3 -2.7
Spring 2.0 4.2 4.4 4.0 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.2
Summer 13.1 19.0 14.4 16.3 15.7 15.7 15.0 15.6
Fall 11.1 9.9 9.8 10.4 7.2 6.4 8.3 8.4

Mean Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Mean Stage Level (m)

Humber Peter’s Leary’s Waterford Humber Peter’s Leary’s Waterford

River River Brook River River River Brook River
Winter 13.3 12.5 13.3 13.7 2.0 1.3 0.8 0.6
Spring 13.8 12.3 12.4 11.6 2.3 1.2 0.9 0.6
Summer 10.5 8.3 8.8 8.6 1.9 1.0 0.7 0.5
Fall 10.5 10.7 11.0 10.1 2.2 1.1 0.8 0.5

take into consideration a wide range of heat inputs
and outputs (e.g. solar radiation, convection from air,
conduction from soil, and net long wave radiation from
the local environment to the river system). Obtaining
all the required parameters for these deterministic
models tends to be a challenging task.
Empirical models take the more direct approach
by developing statistical regression models that relate
routinely monitored meteorological and hydrological
data to water temperature. These models are less
computationally intensive than their deterministic
counterparts. This paper has focused on four commonly
used regression models for water temperature found in
the literature: (1) linear regression using air temperature
as an explanatory variable for water temperature, (2 &
3) nonlinear logistic models (viz. Mohseni et al., 1998)
that describe an S-shaped relationship between air and
water temperature, and (4) multiple regression using
air temperature and stage level as explanatory variables.
Empirical Regression Models for Water
Temperature
The simplest regression model for water temperature
considers the relationship between air and water
temperature to be purely linear (Equation 1):
Tw  a 0  a 1Ta   (1)
where Tw is water temperature, Ta is air temperature, a0
and a1 are the regression coefficients, and ε is an error
term. Johnson (1971) used this linear model to describe
the monthly mean water temperature recorded in six
New Zealand streams. Song et al. (1973) described
monthly mean water temperature in Minnesota
streams using the linear model. Smith (1979) went
beyond mean water temperatures and studied daily
maximum and minimum water temperature. Smith’s
daily minimum models were more scattered and less
reliable than those developed for daily mean and
maximum water temperatures. Smith (1981) revisited
the linear model and found monthly mean models to
be more accurate than daily mean models. Stefan and
Preud’homme (1993) studied 11 streams in the central
United States and also found monthly mean models to
be less scattered then daily means. Pilgrim et al. (1998)
developed linear regression models for predicting
water temperature using data collected at 39 streams in
the state of Minnesota and found weekly and monthly
models to be more reliable for prediction than the daily
models. This tendency for decreased scatter and better
fitting models at longer time-scales does not follow all
the way through to annual means. Annual mean water
temperature datasets tend to be shorter and show
limited variation over time and developed models tend
to have a poor fit as a result (Webb and Nobilis, 1997;
Pilgrim et al., 1998; Erickson and Stefan, 2000).

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 177
The assumption that the air and water temperature
relationship is purely linear has been questioned in a
number of studies. Crisp and Howson (1982) studied
5 and 7-day mean water temperatures for 8 streams in
England and identified a departure from linearity when
air temperatures dropped below 0°C. This departure
at lower air temperatures was also noted by Webb
and Nobilis (1997). Mohseni et al. (1998) observed
nonlinear behavior in weekly maximum water and air
temperature recorded for streams in the United States.
They note that as air temperatures increase and rise
above 25°C, the capacity of the atmosphere to hold
moisture and the rate of evaporative cooling increase as
well. As heat is increasingly lost, the water temperature
no longer increases linearly with the increase in air
temperature and the relationship will eventually taper
off. As such they proposed an S-shaped logistic model
to describe the nonlinear relationship between water
and air temperature (Equation 2):

Tw 
1  e    −Ta  (2)
where α represents the maximum stream temperature,
γ is a measure of the steepest slope of the function,
and β is the air temperature at the inflection point. The
authors note that some of the rivers never experienced
freezing temperatures. Their original logistic model was
then modified to include an additional parameter, µ, to
account for the estimated minimum water temperature
in these warmer rivers (Equation 3):
 −
Tw   
1 e    −Ta  (3)
While the logistic models have been shown to be
a considerable improvement over the linear model for
some rivers (Erickson and Stefan, 2000; Pedersen and
Sand-Jensen, 2007), some studies have suggested ther
is little advantage in using the more complex logistic
models for their rivers (Webb et al., 2003; Neumann
et al., 2003).
The influence of streamflow on the water-air
temperature relationship has also been recognized. In
their study of streams in the United Kingdom, Webb et
al. (2003) note that streamflow is an important variable
that should be considered in the development of water
temperature models. Streamflow was only significant
when shorter time scales were of interest (i.e. hourly
observations). However the multiple regression models
for daily and weekly mean water temperature were
found to be no better than a simple linear regression
model. The addition of streamflow will not always
result in more accurate water temperature models and
most often linear and logistic models will be better
suited to modeling purposes (Crisp and Howson, 1982;
Mohseni et al., 1999). As complete historical records
of streamflow at real-time stations were difficult to
obtain while carrying out this study, stage level was
used instead of streamflow in the following multiple
regression model (Equation 4):
Tw  a 0  a 1Ta  a 2 ST   (4)
where ST represents the stage level for the same time
period as water temperature.
Water Temperature Modeling Results
Datafit Curve Fitting Software Release 8.0.32 was
used to determine model parameters and the overall
goodness-of-fit (based on an analysis of adjusted
R2, residual sum of squares, standard error and
residual plots). A summary of the weekly mean water
temperature models is given in Table 3. A summary of
the first logistic water temperature models for all four
stations is presented in Table 4. A complete record of
model fitting results can be found in Harvey (2010).
Accounting for Hysteresis
Initial results for the Humber River water temperature
models were poor (R2adjusted < 0.80). The goodness-of-fit
of the Humber River model improved after divisions
were made in the dataset to account for seasonal
hysteresis (Figures 2, 3 and 4). Water temperatures
at this station are lower at the same air temperature
during the warming season (February to July) than
they are during the cooling season (August to January).
It is likely that seasonal hysteresis at the Humber River
station is the result of snow and ice melt runoff, which
contributes to water temperatures in this large river
being lower during the warming season. Although
the other three stations were investigated for signs
of hysteresis, no clear seasonal divisions could be
identified in their datasets. The absence of hysteresis
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
178 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Table 3. Summary of Weekly Mean Water Temperature Models

Station Name Models R2adj SE

Humber River Tw = 0.56Ta + 4.23 0.71 3.00

Original Dataset Tw = 19.21/(1+exp(0.16*(9.82-Ta))) 0.74 2.86
149 Observations Tw = 0.91 + (17.74-0.91)/(1+exp(0.19*(9.44-Ta))) 0.73 2.86
Dec ‘03 - Dec ‘06 Tw = 8.67 + 0.56Ta -2.08ST 0.74 2.84

Tw = 0.61Ta + 6.27 0.91 1.57

Humber River
Tw = 20.31/(1+exp(0.15*(6.56-Ta))) 0.93 1.42
Cooling Season
Tw = 0.99 + (19.34-0.99)/(1+exp(0.17*(6.59-Ta))) 0.93 1.42
76 Observations
Stage is not a significant explanatory variable* -- --

Tw = 0.51Ta + 2.12 0.80 2.10

Humber River
Tw = 15.68/(1+exp(0.24*(11.48-Ta))) 0.91 1.43
Warming Season
Tw = 0.47 + (14.87-0.47)/(1+exp(0.28*(11.29-Ta))) 0.91 1.43
73 Observations
Tw = 6.38 + 0.53Ta -2.02ST 0.87 1.74

Tw = 0.78Ta + 4.91 0.90 2.32

Peter’s River
Tw = 22.89/(1+exp(0.21*(8.73-Ta))) 0.95 1.64
91 Observations
Tw = -0.27 + (23.26-0.27)/(1+exp(0.20*(8.79-Ta))) 0.95 1.65
July ‘05 – May ‘07
Stage is not a significant explanatory variable* -- --

Tw = 0.79Ta + 2.97 0.94 1.34

Leary’s Brook
Tw = 18.41/(1+exp(0.23*(7.75-Ta))) 0.95 1.19
57 Observations
Tw = -1.06 + (19.43-1.06)/(1+exp(0.20*(7.76-Ta))) 0.95 1.19
July ‘05 – May ‘07
Stage is not a significant explanatory variable* -- --

Tw = 0.81Ta + 3.12 0.96 1.27

Waterford River Tw = 18.95/(1+exp(0.25*(7.77-Ta))) 0.98 0.99
90 Observations
Tw = -1.41 + (20.27-1.41)/(1+exp(0.20*(7.73-Ta))) 0.98 0.94
July ‘05 – March ‘07
Tw = 6.38 + 0.77Ta – 5.06ST 0.97 1.11

*At the 5% significance level

in the other rivers could be due to the smaller size of
the river basins compared to the Humber River basin.
Linearity vs. Non-linearity
The first logistic model (Equation 2) was best suited
to describing the S-shaped relationship between air
and water temperature at the RTWQM stations. In
all cases the level of explained variance of the first
logistic model was equal to or higher than that of the
linear model. The average increase in R2adjusted gained
when using Equation 2 was largest when dealing
with the daily (+0.05) and weekly mean observations
(+0.04). The logistic model is particularly well suited
to handling the departure from linearity that occurs
at both lower and higher air temperatures at these
timescales. The average increase in explained variance,
when dealing with monthly means, was less (+0.03).
It is likely that the limited difference between

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 179

Table 4. Logistic Model #1 Water Temperature Models

Mean WT Maximum WT Minimum WT

Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily

Tw = α/(1+exp(γ(β – Ta )))
α 21.41 20.31 20.50 27.87 27.54 22.06 37.65 18.26 18.85
γ 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.15
Humber River Cooling β 7.20 6.56 6.78 21.25 19.74 11.57 11.11 -0.51 2.17
Season R adj2
0.99 0.93 0.84 0.88 0.84 0.81 0.90 0.89 0.82
SE 0.57 1.42 2.08 2.08 2.22 2.33 1.44 1.60 2.17
n 19 76 500 19 76 500 19 76 500

α 21.56 15.68 15.77 366.91 32.80 18.90 11.11 11.39 13.10

γ 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.30 0.33 0.30
Humber River Warming
β 14.96 11.48 11.81 51.47 28.95 19.06 1.92 2.29 5.35
Season
R adj2
0.97 0.91 0.83 0.97 0.81 0.77 0.95 0.90 0.83
SE 0.80 1.43 1.99 0.92 2.34 2.44 0.82 1.25 1.91
n 18 73 486 18 73 486 18 73 486

α 21.13 22.89 23.16 43.07 34.59 28.19 68.64 18.19 19.52

γ 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.21
β 7.63 8.73 9.15 27.12 22.04 15.46 9.08 -1.56 3.06
Peter’s River
R adj2
0.97 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.91 0.81 0.75
SE 1.25 1.64 2.59 2.21 2.61 3.02 1.62 2.64 3.31
n 23 91 595 23 91 595 23 91 595

α 18.28 18.41 19.06 1181.08 41.11 24.22 16.28 14.69 16.49

γ 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.28 0.35 0.27
β 7.74 7.75 8.72 76.55 25.47 14.77 1.78 1.30 4.80
Leary’s Brook
R2adj 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.84 0.89 0.88 0.93 0.92 0.89
SE 1.08 1.19 1.59 2.35 2.02 2.10 1.16 1.42 1.73
n 16 57 347 16 57 347 16 57 347

α 18.47 18.95 19.56 70.24 32.34 22.82 11.97 16.33 17.44

γ 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.11 0.14 0.18 1.64 0.25 0.26
β 7.41 7.77 8.36 32.13 19.94 12.24 -0.21 3.66 5.41
Waterford River
R adj2
0.99 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.92
SE 0.69 0.98 1.65 2.07 2.23 2.15 1.17 1.84 1.71
n 21 90 587 21 90 587 21 90 587

monthly mean linear and logistic models is the result summers. According to Mohseni and Stefan (1999),
of monthly mean water temperatures rarely crossing air temperatures need to cross this 25°C threshold
20°C over the course of Newfoundland’s short and cool in order for the slope of the air-water temperature

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

180 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

relationship to eventually level off. Monthly mean significant departure from linearity and both linear
air temperatures at the RTWQM stations rarely and logistic models fit the higher monthly mean
exceeds this 25°C threshold. As a result, there is no water temperatures well. The S-shaped relationship
is more defined when dealing with weekly and daily
20 means as these shorter timescales can capture some
Cooling Season
Warming Season of the higher water temperatures at the stations. For
Cooling 1st Logistic Model example, if weekly mean water temperatures during
Warming 1st Logistic Model
15 four weeks in August are 15, 22, 23, 14 ºC, the average
value for the month will only be 18.5 ºC. By using
Mean Tw (°C)

the weekly water temperatures, higher mean values

10 are included in the dataset and the logistic model has
the opportunity to level off. The first logistic model is
also better than the linear model when dealing with
5
maximum and minimum water temperatures.
The second logistic model (Equation 3) did not
provide a substantial improvement in residual sum of
0
squares or the amount of explained variation over the
-15 -5 5 15 25
first logistic model. For the sake of prediction purposes
Mean Ta (°C)
it is not necessary to include the additional parameter
Figure 2. Weekly mean water temperature in the for minimum water temperature as all of the rivers in
Humber River fit with logistic regression models. this study experience freezing temperatures.
Separate warming and cooling season models
account for hysteresis in the dataset. Cooling
season Tw = 20.31/{1+exp(0.15(6.56-Ta))}; R2adj = 0.93. The Influence of Timescale
Warming season Tw = 15.68/{1+exp(0.24(11.48-Ta))};
R2adj = 0.91. The goodness-of-fit of the water temperature models
improved as the time scale was extended from daily to
25 20
Cooling Season Cooling Season
Warming Season Warming Season
Cooling 1st Logistic Model Cooling Logistic
20 Warming 1st Logistic Model
Warming Logistic
15
Maximum Tw (°C)

Minimum Tw (°C)

15
10
10

5
5

0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -25 -15 -5 5 15

M i
Maximum Ta (°C) Mi i
Minimum Ta (°C)

Figure 3. Weekly maximum water temperature in the
Humber River fit with logistic regression models..
Separate warming and cooling season models
account for hysteresis in the dataset. Cooling season
Tw = 27.54/{1+exp(0.11(19.74-Ta))}; R2adj = 0.84. Warming
season Tw = 32.80/(1+exp(0.14(28.95-Ta))); R2adj = 0.80.
Figure 4. Weekly minimum water temperatures in
the Humber River fit with logistic regression models.
Separate warming and cooling season models
account for hysteresis in the dataset. Cooling season
Tw = 18.26/{1+exp(0.16(-0.51-Ta))}; R2adj = 0.89. Warming
season Tw = 11.39/(1+exp(0.33(2.29-Ta))); R2adj = 0.90.

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 181
monthly observations. Scatter in the daily observations
is higher than in those collected at the weekly and
monthly time scale and the goodness-of-fit of the daily
models is lower as a result. The large amount of scatter
in daily observations at the Waterford River stations is
exemplified in Figure 5. A number of studies (i.e. Eaton
and Scheller, 1996; Mohseni and Stefan, 1999) suggest
daily models are not overly useful as the weekly and
monthly models can achieve higher levels of accuracy
while providing the same kinds of insight.
The Influence of Stage
Stage level tends to be an important explanatory
variable for daily water temperature. Although stage is
significant at this short time scale, multiple regression
(Equation 4) did not provide a significant improvement
over the logistic models in terms of goodness-of-fit
and standard error. The loss of importance of stage at
the extended time scales is similar to the findings of
Crisp and Howson (1982) and Webb (1987).
Model Verification
The prediction capabilities of the models were tested
using observations not used in model development
(Table 5). Figure 6 presents a scatter plot of predicted
mean, maximum and minimum water temperatures at
the Waterford River station. Overall the first logistic
model was determined to be the best available option
for accurately predicting water temperature at the real-
time stations.
Dissolved Oxygen Models
The most commonly developed models for predicting
the concentration of DO in a river are computationally
demanding – i.e. dynamic mass balance models
(Gelda et al., 2001), artificial neural network models
(Rounds, 2002), and extended harmonic analysis
algorithm models (Abdul-Aziz et al., 2007). These
more computationally intensive models were avoided
in this study in favor of three simpler regression models
that use readily available measurements recorded at the
RTWQM stations as explanatory variables: (1) simple
linear regression using water temperature, (2) nonlinear
25
Daily Means
Logistic Model #1
20
Mean Tw (°C)
15
10
5
0
-15 -5 5 15 25
Mean Ta (°C)
Figure 5. Daily mean water temperatures and air
temperatures in the Waterford River fit with a logistic
regression model. Tw = 19.56/{1+exp(0.23(8.36-
Ta))}; R2adj  = 0.94
exponential regression using water temperature, and (3)
multiple regression using water temperature and stage
level as significant explanatory variables.
Empirical Regression Models for Dissolved
Oxygen
The simplest regression model for DO takes the
relationship between water temperature and dissolved
oxygen to be purely linear (Equation 5):
DO  a 0  a 1Tw   (5)
Saffran and Anderson (1996) examined the linear
relationship between minimum DO and maximum
water temperatures for two monitoring sites along the
Red Deer River in Alberta using this model. Minimum
DO levels in the river were negatively correlated with
air temperature and water temperature. The strongest
correlation for the concentration of DO in the river was
with maximum water temperature. The authors note that
the relationship between minimum DO and maximum
air temperature was linear but the lack of sufficient
data at the time the paper was written precluded an
opportunity to fully develop accurate regression models.
An exponential regression model was considered
after initial explorations with the datasets suggested a
nonlinear model might better describe the relationship
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
182 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Table 5. Water Temperature Logistic Model #1 Verification

Mean WT Models Max WT Models Min WT Models

|Pred. – Obs.| |Pred. – Obs.| |Pred. – Obs.|
Station Dataset n Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max
Monthly 5 0.85 1.61 1.22 2.10 3.20 11.67
Humber River Cooling Weekly 25 1.14 3.25 1.55 5.45 1.40 11.81
Daily 130 1.79 5.53 2.05 8.50 1.98 12.93

Monthly 9 0.25 0.54 1.24 5.20 0.46 1.60

Humber RiverWarming Weekly 38 0.63 4.66 1.29 7.11 0.58 2.31
Daily 268 1.04 7.77 1.31 8.03 0.97 6.32

Monthly 8 0.87 3.20 2.02 3.79 0.84 1.91

Peter’sRiver Weekly 32 1.21 6.61 1.92 8.72 1.74 5.49
Daily 196 1.92 10.80 2.19 7.99 2.37 12.03

Monthly 8 1.17 2.68 3.10 8.38 1.37 3.19

Leary’s Brook Weekly 23 0.84 2.34 1.56 6.15 1.27 2.92
Daily 136 1.64 5.01 2.06 7.22 1.55 5.00

Monthly 12 0.50 1.24 2.09 5.78 1.17 4.30

Waterford River Weekly 48 0.80 2.49 1.71 5.70 0.80 2.01
Daily 306 1.36 6.87 1.80 9.61 1.29 6.15

30 between water temperature and DO at some of the

Minimum Values
Mean Values stations (Equation 6):
25 Maximum Values
Predicted Weekly Minimum
Predicted Weekly Mean
DO  expa 0  b1Tw  (6)
Mean Tw (°C)

20 Predicted Weekly Maximum

15 A multiple linear regression model using stage level

was also considered for DO modeling to determine
10
if a better fit could be obtained by incorporating
5 more explanatory variables into the regression model
(Equation 7):
0
-15 -5 5 15 25 35 DO  a 0  a 1Tw  ST   (7)
Mean Ta (°C)
Initial investigations revealed the relationship
Figure 6. Observed and predicted (logistic model) between DO and water temperature to be strongly
mean, maximum and minimum weekly water negative - as water temperatures increased the
temperatures for the Waterford River.  Mean Tw = 18.95/ concentration of DO decreased. The relationship
{1+exp(0.25(7.77-Mean Ta))}; R2adj  = 0.98.  Maximum between dissolved oxygen and stage was found to
Tw = 32.34/{1+exp(0.14(19.94-Maximum Ta))}; R2adj  = be positive - DO was high when the stage level was
0.92.  Minimum Tw = 16.33/{1+exp(0.25(3.66-Minimum high. Due to the negative correlation between water
Ta))}; R2adj  = 0.90 temperature and DO and the positive correlation

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 183

Table 6. Weekly Mean DO Models

Station Name Models R2adj SE

Humber River DO = -0.34Tw + 14.46 0.75 1.09

149 Observations DO = exp(2.69 – 0.03Tw) 0.77 1.05
Dec 2003 – Dec 2006 Stage is not significant explanatory variable* -- --

Humber River DO = -0.29Tw + 13.87 0.89 0.58

140 Observations DO = exp(2.64 – 0.03Tw) 0.89 0.56
Removed 9 high DO Stage is not a significant explanatory variable* -- --
Dec 2003 - Dec 2006

Peter’s River DO = -0.27Tw + 13.21 0.93 0.56

91 Observations DO = exp(2.59 – 0.03Tw) 0.92 0.57
July 2005 – May 2007 Stage is not a significant explanatory variable* -- --

Leary’s Brook DO = -0.41Tw + 14.33 0.82 1.07

57 Observations DO = exp(2.67 – 0.04Tw) 0.77 1.18
July 2005 – May 2007 Stage is not a significant explanatory variable* -- --

Waterford River DO = -0.37Tw + 14.10 0.81 1.17

90 Observations DO = exp(2.66 – 0.03Tw) 0.82 1.15
July 2005 – March 2007 Stage is not a significant explanatory variable* -- --

*At the 5% significance level

between stage and DO, the following datasets
were investigated: (1) mean DO, stage and water
temperature, (2) minimum DO, minimum stage and
maximum water temperature and (3) maximum DO,
maximum stage and minimum water temperature.
Dissolved Oxygen Modeling Results
A summary of the models developed for the
concentration of mean DO at the weekly time scale is
given in Table 6. Table 7 presents the set of exponential
dissolved oxygen models that were developed for the
stations. A more thorough discussion of the model
fitting results can be found in Harvey (2010).
Addressing Unusual DO Concentrations
Present in the Datasets
DO regression models first presented in Harvey et al.(2009)
for the Humber River station were improved in this study
by addressing some unusually high DO concentrations
recorded when water temperature dropped below 2.5°C
(Figure 7). Investigations into the concentration of DO
over this temperature range showed the majority of the
higher observations to be recorded during a stretch of
Datasonde readings dating from February 16, 2006 to
April 11, 2006. The hourly DO concentrations up until
January 6 had been in the 13-13.5 mg/L range. The
sensor was taken offline for maintenance for one month
and the first measurements collected after reinstallation
of the sensor on February 16 were in the range of
18-21 mg/L. Deployment records for the station showed
that the high levels were not due to changes in the
physical conditions in the river but were due to sensor
malfunction - where the default time delay for the

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

184 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Table 7. Summary of the Exponential DO Models

Mean DO Minimum DO Maximum DO

Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily Monthly Weekly Daily

Exponential Model: DO = exp(a + b*Tw)

a 2.643 2.644 2.642 2.620 2.636 2.642 2.668 2.649 2.641
b -0.026 -0.026 -0.026 -0.024 -0.025 -0.026 -0.029 -0.026 -0.026
Humber River Adj R2 0.909 0.891 0.881 0.908 0.887 0.882 0.895 0.878 0.878
SE 0.508 0.562 0.585 0.509 0.580 0.589 0.543 0.573 0.584
n 37 149 986 37 149 986 37 149 986

a 2.588 2.591 2.591 2.545 2.566 2.581 2.634 2.618 2.599

b -0.025 -0.026 -0.026 -0.023 -0.023 -0.024 -0.028 -0.027 -0.026
Peter’s River Adj R 2
0.937 0.922 0.912 0.872 0.876 0.870 0.920 0.923 0.915
SE 0.508 0.566 0.615 0.817 0.774 0.794 0.524 0.533 0.578
n 23 91 595 23 91 595 23 91 595

a 2.666 2.673 2.662 2.567 2.557 2.607 2.772 2.734 2.691

b -0.030 -0.036 -0.035 -0.037 -0.035 -0.033 -0.034 -0.033 -0.033
Adj R2 0.802 0.773 0.679 0.374 0.457 0.554 0.821 0.826 0.402
Leary’s Brook
SE 0.886 1.180 1.494 2.400 2.198 1.850 0.917 0.977 2.535
n 16 57 347 16 57 347 16 57 347

a 2.667 2.663 2.663 2.617 2.631 2.651 2.697 2.680 2.668

b -0.035 -0.035 -0.035 -0.043 -0.035 -0.035 -0.033 -0.030 -0.035
Waterford River Adj R 2
0.887 0.818 0.806 0.579 0.717 0.778 0.847 0.819 0.799
SE 0.880 1.153 1.213 2.252 1.603 1.365 0.923 1.081 1.189
n 21 90 587 21 90 587 21 90 587

Datasonde was not allowing the sensor to warm-
up enough to accurately read the dissolved oxygen
concentrations. WRMD personnel traveled to the station
on April 11 to reset the time delay and after that period
dissolved oxygen values return to the 13-13.5 mg/L range.
Modeling results for the Humber River station were much
better once these artificially high measurements were
removed from the dataset (Figure 8). While no similar
sets of unusually high DO concentrations were recorded
at the other RTWQM stations, a number of individual
measurements outside of the Datasonde’s recordable
0 to 50 mg/L range were removed from the datasets used
for model development. It is likely that these outlying
measurements were the result of equipment malfunction
or calibration error. The same problem was not observed
for the other measured parameters (water temperature,
pH, specific conductance) during the problematic DO
periods.
Investigations were made into dividing the Humber
River DO data into a warming and cooling season to
match the seasonal water temperature models. This
seasonal division was found to be unnecessary as only
minimal differences could be identified between DO
models developed for separate seasons at the station.
Linearity versus Nonlinearity
The goodness-of-fit of the linear (Equation 5) and
exponential (Equation 6) models were found to be similar
when dealing with mean, maximum and minimum DO
concentrations. Both linear and exponential models

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 185

20 Mean DO
19.5 Maximum DO
Minimum DO
Mean DO Exponential
17.5 15 Max DO Exponential
Min DO Exponential
DO (mg/L)

DO (mg/L)
15.5
10
13.5

11.5
5
9.5

7.5 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Mean Tw (°C) Tw (°C)
Figure 7. Daily dissolved oxygen and mean water
temperatures in the Humber River. Note the wide Figure 9. Weekly dissolved oxygen in Leary’s Brook
range of dissolved oxygen concentrations observed fit with exponential regression models.  Mean DO =
when water temperatures in the Humber River are exp(2.67-0.04(Mean Tw)); R2adj  =  0.77.  Maximum DO
below 2.5 °C. = exp(2.56-0.04(Minimum Tw)); R2adj  = 0.46.  Minimum
DO = exp(2.73-0.03(Maximum Tw); R2adj  = 0.83.
16
Weekly Mean
15 Values
Linear Model Maximum and Minimum Datasets
14 Exponential Model
Mean DO (mg/L)

13
12
11
10
9 had an R2adjusted less than 0.60. The fit of the linear and
8
0 5 10 15
Mean Tw (°C)
Figure 8. Weekly mean dissolved oxygen in the
Humber River fit with regression models. Linear model:
DO = -0.29(Tw)+13.90; R2adj = 0.89. Exponential model:
DO = exp(2.64-0.03(Tw)); R2adj = 0.89.
were found to have high R2adjusted values and similar
values of SE at all time scales for the Humber River,
Peter’s River and Waterford River stations. Determining
a well fitting DO model for the Leary’s Brook station
proved to be more difficult. Mean DO models for the
station were reasonable (R2adjusted: 0.68-0.80) but high
scatter in the minimum and maximum datasets resulted
in low R2adjusted (0.37-0.55 for minimum DO and 0.40-
0.82 for maximum DO).
Regression models for Leary’s Brook minimum DO
proved to be a poor fit as these observations were highly
scattered (Figure 9). Scatter in the Waterford River
minimum DO datasets also posed a problem during
model development – particularly at the monthly time
scale where both the linear and exponential model
exponential models to minimum DO were better for
20 the Humber River and Peter’s River stations. Both the
linear and exponential model fit quite well to maximum
DO with adjusted R2adjusted values above 0.80 - with
the exception of Leary’s Brook exponential model
where R2adjusted dropped below 0.50 for both models
due to high scatter in daily observations at that station.
The WRMD has been investigating why DO
values at the Leary’s Brook and Waterford River are not
as consistent as those values collected at the non-urban
stations. The DO data used for model development in
this study was collected using Clark cell DO membrane
technology – the only technology available at the time.
It appears that the membranes in the urban rivers
must have been affected by some characteristic of the
river that did not allow them to operate properly for
the full length of their deployment (i.e. the membrane
was covered in a film of oil or grease at some point
during the deployment that resulted in inaccurate DO

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

186 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

measurements). The WRMD now uses a luminescent
DO technology in their urban streams and are no
longer having issues with poor DO measurements.
It is expected that DO models developed in the near
future based on luminescent DO readings will be more
reliable for prediction.
There was very little difference between the mean,
maximum and minimum DO models developed
16
Daily Means
Exponential Model
14
DO (mg/L)
for the Humber River and Peter’s River – with the
only noticeable difference occurring at colder water
temperatures where the maximum DO models suitably
account for the higher DO concentrations. The
difference between maximum, mean and minimum
DO models is more noticeable for the Leary’s Brook
and Waterford River stations. DO levels at these
stations can show a considerable amount of variation
and this is likely due to their shallow stage levels.
The Effect of Time Scale

As the time scale was shortened the goodness-of-fit of

12
the mean and maximum models decreased – R2adjusted
in the range of 0.03-0.12. This decline is the result
10 of increased scatter in the daily observations (Figure
10 shows the increase in scatter at the Humber River
8
station when transitioning from the monthly to daily
0 5 10 15 20
time scale). The exception to this trend occurred when
Tw (°C)
dealing with Waterford River and Leary’s Brook
minimum DO – where R2adjusted improved as the
Figure 10. Daily mean dissolved oxygen in the timescale is shortened from monthly to daily (Leary’s
Humber River fit with an exponential regression Brook exponential 0.37-0.55; Waterford River
model.  DO = exp(2.64-0.03(Tw)); R2adj  = 0.88 exponential 0.58-0.78).

Table 8. Exponential DO Model Verification Results

Mean DO Models Min DO Models Max DO Models

|Pred. – Obs.| |Pred. – Obs.| |Pred. – Obs.|
Station Dataset n Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max
Monthly 14 0.76 1.77 0.86 2.25 0.80 2.66
Humber River Weekly 63 0.74 2.90 0.79 2.83 0.78 2.91
Daily 398 0.76 2.97 0.76 2.98 0.76 3.00

Monthly 8 0.72 1.42 0.70 1.77 0.79 1.90

Peter’s River Weekly 32 0.68 1.94 0.71 2.04 0.76 2.10
Daily 196 0.72 2.32 0.73 2.25 0.76 2.32

Monthly 8 0.37 0.86 1.44 1.95 0.83 1.87

Leary’s Brook Weekly 23 0.84 1.71 2.52 2.52 0.42 1.32
Daily 136 0.88 1.83 2.12 2.12 0.87 2.02

Monthly 12 1.49 3.09 1.24 2.93 2.66 11.35

Waterford River Weekly 48 1.71 4.09 1.57 3.95 2.21 12.08
Daily 306 1.70 8.14 1.69 10.72 1.80 13.50

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 187

Figure 11. Nomogram linking air temperature to water temperature and then dissolved oxygen. The
dotted/dashed line provides an example of its use during the cooling season for the Humber River; an
air temperature (16 °C) links to a water temperature (17 °C) and then to an expected dissolved oxygen
concentration in the river (9 mg/L).

The Influence of Stage
Stage was only a significant explanatory variable for
DO at the daily time scale and loses its significance
as the time scale is extended to weekly and monthly
observations. Although the multiple regression model
had high R2adjusted at the daily time scale, the goodness-
of-fit of the model did not significantly exceed that of
the linear and exponential models
of a novel graphical procedure (Figure 11). The 3-way
plot visually links user defined air-water temperature
and water temperature-DO models in one single
image. The x and y-axis of the DO models have been
switched in this plot so the user can quickly determine
the influence of air temperature and DO at the real-
time stations. A MinitabTM macro is available from the
authors for producing this plot.

Model Verification
The DO models were tested for verification
purposes using datasets not used in model development.
The exponential decay model was deemed to be the best
overall choice for modeling DO at the stations as it
outperforms the linear model when dealing with low DO
concentrations at higher water temperatures. A summary
of the model testing results are given in Table 8.
Visually Linking Air Temperature to Water
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen
Both the water temperature and DO models developed
in this paper can be linked together through the use
Conclusion
Regression models were developed for predicting daily,
weekly and monthly mean, maximum and minimum
water temperatures at four RTWQM monitoring
stations in Newfoundland. A three-parameter logistic
regression model was best suited to describing the
S-shaped relationship between air and water temperature
at the stations. The goodness-of-fit of the logistic model
improved as the time scale was extended from daily to
monthly observations. The capabilities of the water
temperature models for prediction purposes were tested
using data not used in model development. While the
three-parameter logistic model was found to accurately
predict water temperature at the monthly and weekly
time scale, daily observations of water temperature were
highly scattered and the daily models were less suited

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association

188 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques
for prediction purposes as a result. Each of the stations
were investigated for signs of hysteresis in the data but
only the Humber River station (the largest river in
the network) needed to be subdivided to account for
warming and cooling seasons. Stage level at the stations
is usually only significant at the daily time scale and
stage loses significance as the time scale is extended.
Even when stage is significant the goodness-of-fit of
the multiple regression model does not outperform the
logistic model. By developing regression models that
do not depend on stage level it is possible to estimate
water temperature at the stations even when hydrometric
monitoring equipment is not in operation at the stations.
Both linear and exponential decay regression
models were found to be well suited to modeling the
relationship between water temperature and DO. The
goodness-of-fit of the DO regression models were
better for mean concentrations of DO than they were
for maximum and minimum DO. The mean datasets
avoid major outliers and show less variation than the
maximum and minimum datasets (i.e. mean weekly
measurement might be 12 mg/L while the minimum
value recorded that week might be an unusually low
2 mg/L). There can be a great deal of variation in
hourly DO measurements - where for either physical
or sensor-related reasons the DO concentration will
randomly shift for one particular measurement. These
jumps will be captured in the maximum and minimum
datasets but will be smoothed out by the mean datasets.
There tends to be a significant amount of scatter in
the daily observations and the goodness-of-fit of the
liner and exponential models improved as the time
scale was extended from daily to monthly observations.
Although the prediction capabilities of the linear and
exponential models were found to be similar for high
and mid-range concentrations of DO, the exponential
model was found to be better suited to modeling low
DO concentrations at higher water temperatures.
The air-water temperature and water temperature-
DO models can be linked together using a novel
three-way plot. Resource mangers can use this plot to
determine water temperature and DO for a given air
temperature in one quick step. The regression models
developed in this study and this simple tool will be
useful in the on-going assessment of water quality
in the rivers monitored by the Newfoundland and
Labrador RTWQM network.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC), the Newfoundland and Labrador
Department of Environment and Conservation, the
Institute for Biodiversity, Ecosystem Science and
Sustainability (IBES) and the School of Graduate
Studies at Memorial University.
References
Abdul-Aziz, O., B. Wilson, and J. Gulliver. 2007. An
extended stochastic harmonic analysis algorithm:
application for dissolved oxygen. Water Resources
Research 43: 1-19.
Benyahya, L., A. St-Hiliare, T.M.J. Ouarda, B. Bobee,
and J. Dumas. 2008. Comparison of non-
parametric and parametric water temperature
models on the Nivelle River, France. Hydrological
Sciences 53(3): 640-655.
Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby,
and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream Temperature
and Aquatic Habitat: Fisheries and Forestries
Interactions. In Streamside Management:
Forestry and Fishery Interactions, Salo E.O. and
T.W. Cundy (Eds.). University of Washington,
Institute of Forest Resources. Contribution No.
57. 191-232.
Bjorn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat
Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. In
Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management
on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. Special
Publication 19. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD. 83-158.
Burton, D.T. and L.B. Richardson. 1980. Effect of
Oxygen Reduction Rate and Constant Low
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations on Two
Estuarine Fish. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 109: 552-557.
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 189
Campbell Scientific. 2009. Hydrolab Series 4a Product
Information. http://www.hydrolab.com/products/
DataSonde4a.asp (accessed January 2009).
Crisp, D. and G. Howson. 1982. Effect of Air
Temperature upon Mean Water Temperature in
Streams in the North Pennines and English Lake
District. Journal of Freshwater Biology 12: 359-
367.
Department of Environment and Conservation.
2009a. Water Quality Station Profile –
NF02YL0012. http://www.canal.gov.
nl.ca/canal/root/main/station_details_e.
asp?envirodat=NF02YL0012 (accessed October
2009).
Department of Environment and Conservation.
2009b. Water Quality Station Profile –
NF02ZM0178. http://www.canal.gov.
nl.ca/canal/root/main/station_details_e.
asp?envirodat=NF02ZM0178 (accessed October
2009).
Department of Environment and Conservation.
2009c. Water Quality Station Profile –
NF02ZM0009 . http://www.canal.gov.
nl.ca/canal/root/main/station_details_e.
asp?envirodat=NF02ZM0009 (accessed October
2009).
Eaton, J.G. and R.M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of
Climate Warming on Fish Thermal Habitat in
Streams of the United States. Limnology and
Oceanography 41(5): 1109-1115.
Erickson, T.R. and H.G. Stefan. 2000. Linear Air-
Water Temperature Correlations for Streams
during Open Water Periods. ASCE Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering 5(3):317-321.
Gelda, R., W. Effler, and E. Owens. 2001. River
dissolved oxygen model with zebra mussel oxygen
demand. Journal of Environmental Engineering
127(9): 790-801.
Gras, R. 1969. Simulation du comportement
thermique d’une rivière à partir des données
fournies par un réseau classique d’observations
météorologiques. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of
the International Association for Hydraulic Research,
Tokyo, Volume 1, pp. 491-502.
Harvey, R., L. Lye, and A. Khan. 2009. Regression
Models for Predicting Water Temperatures
and Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in
Newfoundland Rivers. Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering Annual General Conference, St. John’s,
Newfoundland 27-30 May 2009. Paper No. GC-
056, (10 pages) (CD Rom).
Harvey, R. 2010. Statistical Regression Models and
Control Charts for the Real-Time Water Quality
Network in Newfoundland. M. Eng Thesis.
Memorial University. 1-113.
Hodgson, S. and T. Quinn. 2002. The timing of adult
sockeye salmon migration into fresh water:
adaptations by populations to prevailing thermal
regimes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80(3) 542-
555.
Johnson, F. 1971 Stream temperatures in an alpine
area. Journal of Hydrology 14: 322-336.
Khan, H. 1996. Watershed Management Planning
in Newfoundland. Proceedings of the Atlantic
Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society’s
Watershed Management Workshop, St. John’s. 25-32.
Kramer, D.L. 1987. Dissolved oxygen and fish
behavior. Environmental Biology of Fishes 18(2):
81-92.
Lee, R.M. and J.N. Rinne. 1980. Critical thermal
maxima of five trout species in the southwestern
United States. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 109(6), 632-635.
Lloyd, R. 1961. Effect of Dissolved Oxygen
Concentrations on the Toxicity of Several Poisons
to Rainbow Trout (Salmo Gairdnerii Richardson).
Journal of Experimental Biology 38: 447-455.
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
190 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques
Lund, S., D. Caissie, R. Cunjak, M. Vijayan, and
B. Tufts. 2002. The effects of environmental
heat stress on heatshock mRNA and protein
expression in Miramichi Atlantic salmon.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
59: 1553-1562.
Mohseni, O., H. Stefan, and T. Erickson. 1998. A
nonlinear regression model for weekly stream
temperatures. Journal of Water Resources Research
34(10): 2685-2692.
Mohseni, O. and H. Stefan. 1999. Stream
temperature/air temperature relationship: a
physical interpretation. Journal of Hydrology 218:
128-141.
Mohseni, O., T.R. Erickson, and H.G. Stefan. 1999.
Sensitivity of stream temperatures in the United
States to air temperatures projected under a
global warming scenario. Water Resources Research
35: 3723-3733.
Morin, G., T. Nzakimuena, and W. Sochanski. 1994.
Prévision des températures de l’eau en rivières à
l’aide d’un modèle conceptuel: le cas de la rivière
Moisie. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
21(1): 63-75.
Neumann, D., B. Rajagopalan, and E. Zagona.
2003. Regression Model for Daily Maximum
Stream Temperature. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 129(7): 667-674.
Pedersen, L.N. and K. Sand-Jensen. 2007.
Temperature in lowland Danish streams:
contemporary patterns, empirical models and
future scenarios. Journal of Hydrological Processes
21: 348-358.
Pilgrim, J., X. Fang, and H. Stefan. 1998. Stream
Temperature Correlations with Air Temperatures
in Minnesota: Implications for Climate
Warming. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 345(5): 1109-1121.
Raphael, J.M. 1962. Prediction of temperature in
rivers and reservoirs. ASCE Journal of the Power
Division 88: 157-181.
Rounds, S. 2002. Development of a neural network
model for dissolved oxygen in the Tualatin River,
Oregon. Paper presented at the Second Federal
Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las
Vegas, Nevada. 1-13
Saffran, K. and A. Anderson. 1996. An Empirical
Analysis of Water Temperature and Dissolved
Oxygen Conditions in the Red Deer River, Water
Sciences Branch of the Water Management
Division, Alberta Environmental Protection. 1-28
Silver, S.J., C.E. Warren, and P. Doudoroff. 1963.
Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Developing
Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Embryos
at Different Water Velocities. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 92: 327-343.
Sinokrot, B.A., H.G. Stefan, J.H. McCormick, and
J.G. Eaton.1995. Modeling of climate change
effects on stream temperatures and fish habitats
below dams and near groundwater inputs. Climate
Change 30: 181-200.
Song, C., A. Pabst, and C. Bowers. 1973. Stochastic
Analysis of Air and Water Temperatures, Journal
of Environment Engineering 99: 785-800.
Smith, K. 1979. Temperature Characteristics of
British Rivers and the Effects of Thermal
Pollution. In Man’s Impact on the Hydrological
Cycle in the United Kingdom, Hollis GE (ed.). Geo
Abstracts Norwich. 229-242.
Smith, K. 1981. The Prediction of River Water
Temperatures. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 26:
19-32.
Stefan, H. and E. Preud’homme. 1993. Stream
Temperature Estimation from Air Temperature.
Water Resources Bulletin 29(1): 27-45.
Taylor, R.L. 1998. Simulation of hourly stream
temperature and daily dissolved solids for the
Truckee River, California and Nevada. Water-
Resources Investigations Report Number WRI
98-4064, United States Geologic Survey, Reston,
Virginia.
© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association
Harvey, Lye, Khan and Paterson 191

Webb, B. 1987. The Relationship between Air and

Water Temperatures for a Devon River. Reports
and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for
the Advancement of Science 119: 197-222.

Webb, B.W. 1996. Trends in Stream and River

Temperature. Hydrological Processes 17: 3069-
3084.

Webb, B. and F. Nobilis. 1997. A long term

perspective on the nature of the air-water
temperature relationship: a case study.
Hydrological Processes 11: 137-147.

Webb, B., P. Clack, and D. Walling. 2003. Water Air

Temperature Relationships in a Devon River
System and the Role of Flow. Hydrological
Processes 17: 3069-3084.

Water on the Web. 2010. Dissolved Oxygen – Why Is

It Important? http://waterontheweb.org/under/
waterquality/oxygen.html (Accessed March
2010).

© 2011 Canadian Water Resources Association