{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03430079155672823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010554089709762533, 'mean_word_length': 5.616279069767442, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the performance of flow‐routing algorithms used in GIS‐based hydrologic analysis

Flow direction and specific catchment area were calculated for different flow‐routing algorithms using TAPES‐G and TauDEM. A fuzzy classification was used along with eight topo–climatic attributes to delineate six landscape classes from a 10‐m USGS DEM. A series of maps and tabular outputs were produced to compare flow‐routing predictions in different parts of the study area in the Santa Monica Mountains of southern California. The matched pair t‐test was used to compare the performance of pairs of specific catchment area grids across six user‐defined fuzzy landscape classes. The results show that (1) the ‘source’ cells predicted with the D∞, DEMON, and FD8 algorithms were confined to hilltops; (2) two single flow‐routing algorithms (Rho8, D8) produced poor results; and (3) the choice of flow‐routing algorithm has potentially important consequences for the calculation of upslope contributing areas, sediment transport capacity, topographic wetness, and several other topographic indices. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.