The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Global evaluation of new GRACE mascon products for hydrologic applications
Open accessAbstract
Recent developments in mascon (mass concentration) solutions for GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite data have significantly increased the spatial localization and amplitude of recovered terrestrial Total Water Storage anomalies (TWSA); however, land hydrology applications have been limited. Here we compare TWSA from April 2002 through March 2015 from (1) newly released GRACE mascons from the Center for Space Research (CSR‐M) with (2) NASA JPL mascons (JPL‐M), and with (3) CSR Tellus gridded spherical harmonics rescaled (sf) (CSRT‐GSH.sf) in 176 river basins, ∼60% of the global land area. Time series in TWSA mascons (CSR‐M and JPL‐M) and spherical harmonics are highly correlated (rank correlation coefficients mostly >0.9). The signal from long‐term trends (up to ±20 mm/yr) is much less than that from seasonal amplitudes (up to 250 mm). Net long‐term trends, summed over all 176 basins, are similar for CSR and JPL mascons (66–69 km 3/yr) but are lower for spherical harmonics (∼14 km 3/yr). Long‐term TWSA declines are found mostly in irrigated basins (−41 to −69 km 3/yr). Seasonal amplitudes agree among GRACE solutions, increasing confidence in GRACE‐based seasonal fluctuations. Rescaling spherical harmonics significantly increases agreement with mascons for seasonal fluctuations, but less for long‐term trends. Mascons provide advantages relative to spherical harmonics, including (1) reduced leakage from land to ocean increasing signal amplitude, and (2) application of geophysical data constraints during processing with little empirical postprocessing requirements, making it easier for nongeodetic users. Results of this product intercomparison should allow hydrologists to better select suitable GRACE solutions for hydrologic applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Emerging trends in global freshwater availability
Rodell, M., Famiglietti, J. S., Wiese, D. N., Reager, J. T., Beaudoing, H. K., Landerer, F. W., & Lo, M.-H. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0123-1 · Cited by 2,107
Self-citationTowards hybrid modeling of the global hydrological cycle
Kraft, B., Jung, M., Körner, M., Koirala, S., & Reichstein, M. (2022) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-26-1579-2022 · Cited by 173
Water scarcity and social conflict
Unfried, K., Kis-Katos, K., & Poser, T. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102633 · Cited by 142
Kitambo, B. M., Wongchuig, S., Tshimanga, R. M., Paris, A., Blazquez, A., Moreira, D., Frappart, F., Fleischmann, A. S., Kileshye, J.-M. O., Tourian, M. J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2025.102810 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Scanlon, B. R., Zhang, Z., Save, H., Wiese, D. N., Landerer, F. W., Long, D., Longuevergne, L., & Chen, J.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2016-12
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 9412-9429
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2563000821
- Cited by
- 599
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global evaluation of new GRACE mascon products for hydrologic applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2016wr019494
- The paper
- Scanlon, B. R., Zhang, Z., Save, H., Wiese, D. N., Landerer, F. W., Long, D., Longuevergne, L., & Chen, J. (2016). Global evaluation of new GRACE mascon products for hydrologic applications. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016wr019494
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.