Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)

Comparison between total least squares and ordinary least squares in obtaining the linear relationship between stable water isotopes

Abstract

The linear relationship between two stable water isotopes (δD and δ18O) has been used to examine the physical processes and movements or changes of three water phases (water vapor, liquid water and ice), including deuterium excess. The ordinary least squares (OLS) method has been the most commonly used method to fit the linear relationship between two isotopic compositions of water. However, an alternative method, the total least squares (TLS) method, has been proposed because it considers the presence of errors in the explanatory variable (horizontal axis, δ18O). However, not many studies have examined the differences of the relationship using two stable isotopes between the OLS and TLS for various types of water. In this work, these two methods were compared using isotopic compositions of three types of water (Antarctic snow, water vapor and summer and winter rainfall). Statistically, the slopes and intercepts obtained by the two linear regression methods were not significantly different except for summer rainfall, which has the smallest coefficient of variations (R2). The TLS method produced larger slopes than the OLS method and the degrees of difference between the two methods were greater when the coefficient of variation was lower. In addition, with a Monte Carlo method, we showed that the differences between the two methods increased as the uncertainty increased. Moreover, the results of Bayesian linear regression were consistent with the two linear regressions. Although the TLS method is theoretically more suited to the linear regression for the stable water isotopes than the OLS method is, the application of the widely used OLS method can be recommended in the case of small measurements uncertainties after testing whether the linear parameters, slopes and intercepts, derived from the two methods are statistically significant different.

Background

Stable isotopic measurements of water are helpful for quantifying global or local distributions of exchange processes between water vapor, liquid water and ice. One of the isotopic techniques widely used in isotope hydrology is to investigate the slope of the δD vs. δ18O regression line and deuterium excess (d-excess), defined as δD–8 × δ18O (Dansgaard 1964a, b). The slope and intercept of the linear regression may reveal evidence of water movement, moisture source regions, groundwater recharge processes, isotopic exchange among water vapor, liquid water and ice and so on (Lee et al. 1999, 2010). The d-excess is useful for identifying moisture source regions (Merlivat and Jouzel, 1979). Data from the Global Network of Isotopes in Precipitation (GNIP) database have been investigated to obtain a linear relationship of the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) or Local Meteoric Water Line (LMWL). The GMWL (δD = 8 × δ18O + 10), defined by Craig (1961) and LMWLs investigated by many works, have been derived using an ordinary least squares (OLS) method (Crawford et al. 2014). Typically, the evaporation of soil or lake water results in a linear slope less than ~ 8, the slope of the GMWL or LMWL.

Craig (1961) presented a key finding concerning the distribution of isotopic ratios in precipitation. He noted that the global isotopic compositions of precipitation (δD and δ18O) are highly correlated and plots along a regression slope of 8, which defines the GMWL. The slope value of the GMWL approximates the ratio of the equilibrium fractionation factors between liquid water and water vapor for D and 18O,

$${\text{Slope}} = \frac{{ln\left( {\alpha D_{{{\text{w}} - {\text{v}}}} } \right)}}{{ln\left( {\alpha^{18} O_{{{\text{w}} - {\text{v}}}} } \right)}},$$
(1)

where α18Ow–v and αDwv are the equilibrium isotopic fractionation factor between water and water vapor for oxygen and hydrogen, respectively. The value of 8 is an approximation of the \(\frac{{ln\left( {\alpha D_{{{\text{w}} - {\text{v}}}} } \right)}}{{ln\left( {\alpha^{18} O_{{{\text{w}} - {\text{v}}}} } \right)}}\) ratio as observed in the global meteoric waters. The + 10‰ value of d-excess in the GMWL indicates that at a global scale, the kinetic evaporation of water vapor from oceanic water occurring. The non-equilibrium evaporation of ocean water under relative humidity conditions of less than 100% produces water vapor. This water vapor is depleted from the parent water yet displaced above the meteoric water line due to the enhanced diffusion of HDO (mass of 19) over H218O (mass of 20) from the water-surface boundary layer (\(\frac{{ln\left( {\alpha D_{{{\text{w}} - {\text{v}}}} } \right)}}{{ln\left( {\alpha^{18} O_{{{\text{w}} - {\text{v}}}} } \right)}}\) < 8; kinetic fractionation). Accordingly, variations in d-excess in precipitation reflect changes in the relative humidity of the air in the source area. Any process that changes two water isotopes along a slope with a value not equal to 8 would cause a change in the value of d-excess and thus a loss or misinterpretation of its sources information (Lee et al. 2009).

In many scientific studies, the OLS method has not been considered appropriate to define linear relationships as it is assumed that there are no measurement errors associated with the explanatory variable (horizontal axis or x-axis) (Keleş 2018). Conversely, alternative regression methods, such as the total least squares (TLS) method and linear regression model using a Bayesian approach, consider the presence of errors in the explanatory variable. In the TLS, the orthogonal (perpendicular) distances from the regression line to the data points are minimized (Fig. 1). The crucial difference between the OLS and TLS methods is that the former minimizes the error only for the vertical variable whereas the latter minimizes the errors in both the horizontal and vertical directions (Markovsky and Van Huffel 2007). In principle, this makes the TLS approach more suitable for interpolating isotopic data as the two stable water isotopes are independent of each other. Recently, it has been shown that a linear regression model using a Bayesian approach can be used to determine the distribution of the regression parameters (Stow et al. 2006).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Schematic comparison between ordinary least squares (OLS) and total least squares (TLS). The solid line in the middle of the plot is a fitting line model of y = a + bx

Obtaining a reliable slope and intercept for the linear relationships for various water types is particularly crucial for the studies, focusing on groundwater recharge, evaluating the effect of the evaporation processes of various water types, examining water sources using mixing calculations and differentiating isotopic exchange among water vapor, liquid water and ice (Lee et al. 2009, 2010; Earman et al. 2006). Thus, the objectives of this study are to: (1) evaluate the difference in the slopes and intercepts of the linear relationship between two water isotopes computed by the OLS and TLS methods for various water types (i.e., snow, ice and meltwater from Antarctica, water vapor and precipitation from volcanic island); (2) investigate whether the differences in the slopes and intercepts calculated by the OLS and a linear regression model using a Bayesian approach are significant; and (3) explore a cause of the difference in the slopes and intercepts between the OLS and TLS methods.

Methodology

Ordinary least squares (OLS) vs. total least squares (TLS)

A linear relationship between y and x can be expressed for each data pair as

$$\hat{y} = a + bx$$
(2)

where b is the slope and a is the intercept and the hat over the y in \(\hat{y}_{i}\) indicates that it is predicted value of y. Then, we assume that y is linked to x by

$$y_{i} = a + bx_{i}$$
(3)

where \(\Delta \varepsilon_{i}\) ~ N(0, σ2) is referred to as an “error” or “residual”, which is the departure of an actual yi from the value of yi predicted using Eq. (2) and the sum of ∆yi’s is zero. In OLS, x is not subject to error; i.e., all departures of the data from the straight line are caused by errors in y. Then the error is

$$\Delta \varepsilon_{i} = y_{i} - \left( {a + bx_{i} } \right)$$
(4)

Detailed explanations of OLS can be found in many statistical textbooks and only a brief overviews is presented here. Geometrically, the error in the OLS is the vertical distance between yi (observed) and \(\hat{y} = a + bx_{i}\) (predicted) (see Fig. 1). In OLS, we can find the two variables, a and b that minimize the sum of the squares of the vertical distances between the line and the data; i.e., the quantity will be minimized, so the OLS solution is given by

$$a = \overline{y} - b\overline{x}$$
(5a)
$$b = \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)\left( {y_{i} - \overline{y}} \right)} }}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)^{2} } }},$$
(5b)

where \(\overline{x}\) and \(\overline{y}\) are the means of the xi and yi values, respectively.

In TLS, the error is the sum of Euclidean distances from the points (observed) to the regression line (predicted). The analogous estimator for the TLS put the cloud of measured (xi, yi) as close as possible to the regression line using a different measure of distance, in this case, the perpendicular distance, RTLS, which can be written as

$$R_{{{\text{TLS}}}} \left( {a,b} \right) = \Delta \varepsilon_{i} cos\theta = \frac{{\Delta y_{i} }}{{\sqrt {1 + tan^{2} \theta } }} = \frac{{\Delta y_{i} }}{{\sqrt {1 + b^{2} } }}$$
(6)

where we have identified the slope of the desired line as b = tanθ and Δyi as the usual OLS vertical residual. With this notation, the TLS estimators (a, b) are found by minimizing, which differs from the OLS only in the premultiplier. Therefore, the TLS solution is given as

$$a = \overline{y} - b\overline{x}$$
(7)

which is the same as the OLS solution. We can eliminate a by substituting the result from Eq. (11) into Eq. (10b). Rewriting the equation yields a quadratic equation in b

$$0 = \beta_{2} b^{2} + \beta_{1} b + \beta_{0}$$
(8)

with coefficients

$$\beta_{2} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)} \left( {y_{i} - \overline{y}} \right)$$
(9a)
$$\beta_{1} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left[ {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)^{2} - \left( {y_{i} - \overline{y}} \right)^{2} } \right]}$$
(9b)
$$\beta_{0} = - \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)} \left( {y_{i} - \overline{y}} \right)$$
(9c)

The value of b can be expressed as

$$b = \omega \pm \left( {v - u} \right)\sqrt {w^{2} + 1}$$
(10a)

where

$$u = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)^{2} } ,\quad v = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {y_{i} - \overline{y}} \right)^{2} } ,\quad w = \frac{v - u}{{2r}},\quad r = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)} \left( {y_{i} - \overline{y}} \right)$$
(10b)

The standard error of the slope and the intercept can be calculated via the following the equations.

$${\text{SE}}_{{{\text{slope}}}} = \frac{{\sqrt {\frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {y_{i} - \hat{y}} \right)^{2} } }}{n - 2}} }}{{\sqrt {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \hat{x}} \right)^{2} } } }}$$
(11a)
$${\text{SE}}_{{{\text{intercept}}}} = {\text{SE}}_{{{\text{slope}}}} \sqrt {\frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {x_{{_{i} }}^{2} } }}{n}}$$
(11b)

Linear regression model using Bayesian approach

Bayes’ theorem can be summarized by

$${\text{posterior}}\; \propto {\text{prior}} \times {\text{likelihood}}{.}$$
(12)

Therefore, it is necessary to determine the likelihood and decide on the prior for the linear model. The linear relationship in Eq. (2) under the assumption that ∆ is distributed normally, the likelihood function is

$$p\left( {\left. {y_{i} } \right|x_{i} ,a,b,\sigma^{2} } \right) = \frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi \sigma^{2} } }}exp\left( { - \frac{{\left( {y_{i} - \left( {a + bx_{i} } \right)^{2} } \right)}}{{2\sigma^{2} }}} \right)$$
(13)

It is assumed that the joint prior distribution of a, b and σ2 is proportional to the inverse of σ2, which can be expressed as following:

$$p\left( {a,b,\sigma^{2} } \right) \propto \frac{1}{{\sigma^{2} }}$$
(14)

Finally, the posterior distribution of b conditioning on σ2 is

$$b|\sigma^{2} ,\;{\text{data}}\sim {\text{Normal}}\left( {\hat{\beta },\frac{{\sigma^{2} }}{{S_{xx} }}} \right),$$
(15)

where \(\hat{\beta }\) is the slope estimate using the OLS and \(S_{xx} = \sum\limits_{i}^{n} {\left( {x_{i} - \overline{x}} \right)}^{2}\). The posterior distribution of a conditioning on σ2 is

$$a|\sigma^{2} ,\;{\text{data}}\sim {\text{Normal}}\left( {\hat{\alpha },\sigma^{2} \left( {\frac{1}{n} + \frac{{\overline{x}^{2} }}{{S_{xx} }}} \right)} \right),$$
(16)

In this work, we compare the linear relationship between two isotopes determined using OLS and the Bayesian approach, as computed with the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) package in Stan.

Results

Data sets used in this work

The isotopic ratios are expressed in the δ notation as differences in parts per thousand relative to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW), δ = [(Rx/Rs)–1] × 1000. Here Rx is the isotopic ratio 18O/16O or D/H of the water sample and Rs is the isotopic ratio of the VSMOW. For this study, the following three data sets were used to perform comparisons between the OLS and TLS methods:

  1. 1.

    Isotopic compositions of snow and meltwater from the Barton peninsula, Antarctica were selected (Lee et al. 2020). Snow (n = 62) and meltwater (n = 116) samples were collected for isotopic analysis from 9 to 30 January, 2014. Compared to the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL, δD = 8 × δ18O + 10), the linear slope between the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes of snow and meltwater was found to be 7.0 using OLS, which is significantly less than the GMWL (Fig. 2a).

  2. 2.

    Isotopic compositions of water vapor observed by Lee et al. (2013) were chosen. Continuous monitoring of water vapor isotopes before and after Typhoon Bolaven from 27 to 29 August, 2012 was conducted and a largely depleted isotopic ratios in surface water vapor were observed in association with the passage of the Typhoon Bolaven. The linear slope between oxygen and hydrogen isotopes of water vapor was 7.8 as determined by OLS, which is similar to the GMWL (Fig. 2b).

  3. 3.

    Precipitation isotopes from Jeju volcanic island, located about 100 km off the southwestern tip of the Korean peninsula, were selected for the comparison of linear relationship between OLS and TLS (Lee et al. in prep). The samples were collected from fifteen sites distributed all over Jeju island every month between September 2000 and December 2003 (Fig. 3). The isotopic compositions of samples were determined using a stable isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Isoprime model, GV Instruments) at the Korea Basic Science Institute. The analytical precisions for the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes were less than ± 0.1‰ and less than ± 1.0‰, respectively. Figure 3 shows the linear relationships between two water isotopes in both Case 1 (Antarctic snow and snowmelt) and Case 2 (water vapor isotopes) using the OLS and TLS methods. In Case 1, the slopeOLS and interceptOLS differed from those of the GMWL (Table 1). Lee et al. (2020) concluded that the linear isotopic relationship for the whole samples (snow and snowmelt) indicates that the original snow experienced isotopic fractionation through significant melting (slopeOLS ~ 7.0). The slopeOLS and interceptOLS of Case 2 are 7.8 and 10.1, respectively, which is close to the LMWL (Lee et al. 1999, δD = 7.9 × δ18O + 8.8).

Fig. 2
figure 2

a The linear relationship between oxygen and hydrogen isotopes of snow and snowmelt sampled from the King Sejong Station obtained using OLS and TLS. b The linear relationship between oxygen and hydrogen isotopes of water vapor obtained using OLS and TLS (Lee et al. 2013). c A comparison of the residuals of oxygen isotopes obtained using OLS and TLS d A comparison of the residuals oxygen isotopes obtained using OLS and TLS

Fig. 3
figure 3

Isotopic compositions of summer and winter rainfall from Jeju volcanic island, Jeju, Korea. Two local meteoric water lines (LMWL) are observed

Table 1 Comparisons between parameters obtained using ordinary least squares (OLS) and total least squares method (TLS)

In Case 3 (precipitation from Jeju volcanic island), two different LMWLs can be drawn using the OLS to describe the isotopic data for different seasons, for instance, summer (June, July and August) and winter precipitation (December, January and February) on the island (Fig. 3). The two LMWLs were δD = 8.1 × δ18O + 7.9 and δD = 7.9 × δ18O + 21.0 for summer and winter, respectively. The values of d-excess for summer precipitation (~ 8‰) were clearly distinct from those of winter precipitation because of different origin of air masses between two seasons (> 20‰).

Discussion

Linear relationship between two water isotopes

Evaporated or convected water vapor over the ocean can be transported to the atmosphere and condensed and precipitated in the form of rain and snow, which results in the depletion of isotopic compositions (δD and δ18O) compared to the original value of the water vapor. The isotopic linear relationship between oxygen and hydrogen of water originating from the ocean has a slope of 8 and an intercept of 10, which is the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL, Dansgaard 1964). Water vapor convected from nearby ocean and transported to polar regions will be precipitated in the form of snow instead of rain. The isotopic compositions of snow also have a slope of around 8 and an intercept of 8 ~ 12, depending on relative humidity. In Antarctica, the LMWL determined by Masson-Delmotte et al. (2008) is 7.75 (± 0.02) – 4.93 (R2 = 0.998, n = 789).

Typically, the evaporation of soil or lake water results in a slope less than ~ 8, which is the slope of the local meteoric water line (LMWL). However, processes other than evaporation, such as an isotopic exchange between liquid water and ice (melting) or between water vapor and ice (sublimation), may also affect the slope of δD vs. δ18O relationship (Earman et al. 2006). As the isotopic fractionation between liquid water and ice is 3.1‰ for oxygen and 19.5‰ for hydrogen, respectively, Lee et al. (2009) and Lee et al. (2010) predicted and demonstrated that the slope between the two water isotopes of snowmelt would be close to 19.5/3.1≈6.3. Near the surface, snow undergoes isotopic exchanges with atmospheric water vapor (isotopic fractionation between water vapor and ice, 88.2‰ for hydrogen and 11.4‰ for oxygen, respectively), which can yield an ice–vapor relationship of 88.2/11.4≈7.7 at equilibrium (0 °C).

Differences between the OLS and TLS

For all three cases with the two regression methods, the meteoric waters (snow, water vapor and rainfall) have statistically similar slopes and intercepts for OLS and TLS (H0 = TLS > OLS, one tailed) except for those of summer for Case 3 (Table 1). A similar distribution of residuals (\(y_{i} - \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{y}_{i}\)) was observed in Cases 1 and 2 (Fig. 2c, d). The probability (p) of the differences in slope for the three cases obtained using the two methods are 0.08 (Case 1), 0.27 (Case 2) and 0.04 (Case 3, summer rainfall) and 0.08 (Case 3 winter rainfall), respectively, and the differences in intercept are 0.08 (Case 1), 0.28 (Case 2) and 0.03 (Case 3 summer rainfall) and 0.10 (Case 3 winter rainfall), respectively. Again, the slopes and intercepts obtained using the two linear regressions methods are not statistically different except for Case 3 summer rainfall.

Compared to other cases, Case 3 summer rainfall has the smallest R2 values, that is, coefficient of variation or correlation (0.956, Table 1). Our results indicate that the magnitude of the differences in the slope and intercepts obtained by the two methods are primarily due to the coefficient of variation \(\left( {R^{2} = 1 - \frac{{\sum {\varepsilon_{i} } }}{{\sum {\left( {y_{i} - \overline{y}} \right)^{2} } }}} \right)\) computed between two stable water isotopes. When considerable vertical scatter was present in the relationship between the two water isotopes, larger differences in the slopes were observed between the two regression methods. The TLS method is more sensitive to outliers and as a result, it appears that the TLS produced large slopes when the coefficient of variation was lower. The mean values of the slopes obtained using TLS are statistically significantly larger than those obtained using OLS (t test, one-tailed, p < 0.05).

A Monte Carlo method was used to test how the coefficient of variation affects the difference in the slopes and intercepts between the two regressions (Anderson 1976). A data set following the GMWL (δD = 8 × δ18O + 10, Fig. 4a) was created and then another two data sets were generated using the means of this data set and added uncertainties. As the uncertainty increased, the coefficient of variation decreased as shown in Fig. 4. As the coefficient of variation decreased, the slopes and intercepts were deviated more from the GMWL and the standard errors of the slopes and intercepts were increased using the two regressions. The slopes obtained using the TLS method are larger than those obtained the OLS method in the two calculations (Random samples 1 and 2 in Table 1). The degrees of the deviations from the GMWL for the TLS method are greater than those for the OLS method. With this experiment, the significant difference in slope obtained for Case 3 summer rainfall can be explained by the fact that the coefficient of variation controls the differences in the linear slopes and intercepts.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Results of a Monte Carlo experiments. a Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes with mean values and one standard deviation; the values were − 7.5 ± 2.21 and − 50.1 ± 17.65, respectively. b New data set generated from the distribution from the previous one (means values with one standard deviation for oxygen and hydrogen, − 7.5 ± 2.23 and − 50.2 ± 17.90). c Another data set, means values with one standard deviation for oxygen and hydrogen, − 7.5 ± 2.25 and − 50.2 ± 18.05

Comparison with the Bayesian linear regression

In the Bayesian perspective, the linear regression can be formulated using probability distributions rather than point estimates. The aim of Bayesian linear regression is not to find the single “best” value of the regression parameter, but rather to determine the posterior distribution for the model parameters (Bolstad and Curran 2016). By comparing the mean values for the slope and intercept obtained using Bayesian linear regression to those obtained using OLS, it was found that they are not different. While we can use the mean as a single point estimate, we also have a range of possible values for the regression parameters from the Bayesian perspective (Permai and Tanty 2018).

In this work, the Bayesian linear regression was applied to the Antarctic snow/snowmelt (Case 1) to investigate that different regression method results in changing the physical process of water. The slope of the two water isotopes (Case 1) obtained using OLS was 7.0, which indicates that the original snow experienced isotopic fractionation through significant melting. The Bayesian posterior distribution results of slope (b) and intercept (a) show that the posterior credible intervals are numerically equivalent to the confidence intervals obtained using the OLS method. Table 2 provides 95% confidence intervals, which coincides with the confidence intervals obtained using the OLS method. However, the primary difference is in the interpretation of the results. Based on the data, there is 95% chance that the slope will fall in the range between 6.85 and 7.16, which does not change the conclusion obtained using the OLS method.

Table 2 Bayesian results for Antarctic snow (Case 1)

Summary

In this work, we quantified the differences in the slopes and intercepts of two stable water isotopes computed by the OLS and TLS methods and investigated whether the magnitude of the differences was affected by the coefficient of variation (R2). As expected, based on the intrinsic mathematical characteristics of the two methods, we found that the TLS method always produced the larger slopes and intercepts than the OLS method for three water types, Antarctic snow/snowmelt, water vapor and summer and winter rainfall. The slopes and intercepts obtained using the two linear regression methods are not statistically different except for the summer rainfall, which has the smallest coefficient of variations (R2). With the Monte Carlo method, we showed that the differences between the two methods increased as the uncertainty increased. Furthermore, the results of the Bayesian linear regression were consistent with those of the two linear regression methods.

Based on our findings, regarding isotope hydrology, we suggest that researchers should consider the measurement uncertainties for both δD and δ18O and to test whether the slopes and intercepts calculated by the OLS and TLS are statistically significantly different. Although the TLS method is theoretically more suited to linear regression for stable water isotopes than OLS, the application of the widely used OLS method can be still regitimate in the case of small measurement uncertainties.

Availability of data and materials

The data used in this work may be obtained from the paper indicated in the manuscript.

References

  • Anderson GM (1976) Error propagation by the Monte Carlo method in geochemical calculation. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 40:1533–1538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolstad WM, Curran JM (2016) Introduction to Bayesian statistics. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig H (1961) Isotopic variations in meteoric waters. Science 133(3465):1702–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J, Hughes CE, Lykoudis S (2014) Alternative least squares methods for determining the meteoric water line, demonstrated using GNIP data. J Hydrol 519:2331–2340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansgaard W (1964) Stable isotopes in precipitation. Tellus 16:436–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earman S, Campbell AR, Phillips FM, Newman BD (2006) Isotopic exchange between snow and atmospheric water vapor: estimation of the snowmelt component of groundwater recharge in the southwestern United States. J Geophys Res 111:D09302. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautam MK, Lee K-S, Bong Y-S, Song B-Y, Ryu J-S (2017) Oxygen and hydrogen isotopic characterization of rainfall and throughfall in four South Korean cool temperate forests. Hydrolog Sci J 62(12):2025–2034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollins SE, Hughes CE, Crawford J, Cendon DI, Meredith KT (2018) Rainfall isotope variations over the Australian continent—implications for hydrology and isoscape applications. Sci Total Environ 645:630–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keleş T (2018) Comparison of classical least squares and orthogonal regression in measurement error models. Int Online J Educ Sci 10(3):200–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee K-S, Wenner DB, Lee I (1999) Using H- and O-isotopic data for estimating the relative contributions of rainy and dry season precipitation to groundwater: example from Cheju Island, Korea. J Hydrol 222:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Feng X, Posmentier E, Faiia A, Taylor S (2009) Stable isotopic exchange rate constant between snow and liquid water. Chem Geol 260:57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Feng X, Faiia A, Posmentier E, Kirchner J, Osterhuber R, Taylor S (2010) Isotopic evolution of a seasonal snowcover and its melt by isotopic exchange between liquid water and ice. Chem Geol 270:126–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Choi H, Oh J, Na US, Kwak H, Hur SD (2013) Moisture transport observed by water vapor isotopes in the vicinity of coastal area, Incheon, Korea. Econ Environ Geol 46:339–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Hur SD, Lim HS, Jung H (2020) Isotopic characteristics of snow and its meltwater over the Barton Peninsula, Antartica. Cold Reg Sci Technol 173:102997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markovsky I, Van Huffel S (2007a) Overview of total least square methods. Signal Process 87(10):2283–2302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson-Delmotte V, Hou S, Ekaykin A et al (2008) A review on Antarctic surface snow isotopic compositions: observations, atmospheric circulation and isotopic modeling. J Clim 21(13):3359–3387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merlivat L, Jouzel J (1979) Global climatic interpretation of the deuterium-oxygen 18 relationship for precipitation. J Geophys Res 84:5029–5033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Permai SD, Tanty H (2018) Linear regression model using Bayesian approach for energy performance of residential building. Procedia Comput Sci 135:671–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pospiech S, Tolosana-Delgado R, van den Boogaart KG (2020) Discriminant analysis for compositional data incorporating cell-wise uncertainties. Math Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-020-09878-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stow CA, Reckhow KH, Qian SS (2006) A Bayesian approach to retransformation bias in transformed regression. Ecology 87:1472–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by a research grant from the Korean Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (KIMST20190361) and partially supported by the principal Research Fund of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (GP2017-018).

Funding

This work was sponsored by a research grant from the Korean Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (KIMST20190361) and partially supported by the principal Research Fund of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (GP2017-018).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JL: Analysis, interpretation and writing the manuscript. WSL: Initiation of this study. HJ: Implementation of the reference collection. SGL: Constructive comments and funding. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeonghoon Lee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, J., Lee, W.S., Jung, H. et al. Comparison between total least squares and ordinary least squares in obtaining the linear relationship between stable water isotopes. Geosci. Lett. 9, 11 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-022-00219-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-022-00219-w

Keywords

  • Ordinary least squares
  • Total least squares
  • Stable water isotopes
  • Monte Carlo