{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026674937965260544, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014267990074441687, 'mean_word_length': 5.477911646586345, '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}}
Continuous versus event‐based sampling: how many samples are required for deriving general hydrological understanding on Ecuador's páramo region?

As a consequence of the remote location of the Andean páramo, knowledge on their hydrologic functioning is limited; notwithstanding, these alpine tundra ecosystems act as water towers for a large fraction of the society. Given the harsh environmental conditions in this region, year‐round monitoring is cumbersome, and it would be beneficial if the monitoring needed for the understanding of the rainfall–runoff response could be limited in time. To identify the hydrological response and the effect of temporal monitoring, a nested (n = 7) hydrological monitoring network was set up in the Zhurucay catchment (7.53 km2), south Ecuador. The research questions were as follows: (1) Can event sampling provide similar information in comparison with continuous monitoring, and (2) if so, how many events are needed to achieve a similar degree of information? A subset of 34 rainfall–runoff events was compared with monthly values derived from a continuous monitoring scheme from December 2010 to November 2013. Land cover and physiographic characteristics were correlated with 11 hydrological indices. Results show that despite some distinct differences between event and continuous sampling, both data sets reveal similar information; more in particular, the monitoring of a single event in the rainy season provides the same information as continuous monitoring, while during the dry season, ten events ought to be monitored. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.