Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of remote‐sensing‐based rainfall products through predictive capability in hydrological runoff modelling

Stisen, Simon, Sandholt, Inge·2010·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

The emergence of regional and global satellite‐based rainfall products with high spatial and temporal resolution has opened up new large‐scale hydrological applications in data‐sparse or ungauged catchments. Particularly, distributed hydrological models can benefit from the good spatial coverage and distributed nature of satellite‐based rainfall estimates (SRFE). In this study, five SRFEs with temporal resolution of 24 h and spatial resolution between 8 and 27 km have been evaluated through their predictive capability in a distributed hydrological model of the Senegal River basin in West Africa. The main advantage of this evaluation methodology is the integration of the rainfall model input in time and space when evaluated at the sub‐catchment scale. An initial data analysis revealed significant biases in the SRFE products and large variations in rainfall amounts between SRFEs, although the spatial patterns were similar. The results showed that the Climate Prediction Center/Famine Early Warning System (CPC‐FEWS) and cold cloud duration (CCD) products, which are partly based on rain gauge data and produced specifically for the African continent, performed better in the modelling context than the global SRFEs, Climate Prediction Center MORPHing technique (CMORPH), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) and Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN). The best performing SRFE, CPC‐FEWS, produced good results with values of R2NS between 0·84 and 0·87 after bias correction and model recalibration. This was comparable to model simulations based on traditional rain gauge data. The study highlights the need for input specific calibration of hydrological models, since major differences were observed in model performances even when all SRFEs were scaled to the same mean rainfall amounts. This is mainly attributed to differences in temporal dynamics between products. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hyp.7529

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 194

Metadata

Authors
Stisen, S., & Sandholt, I.
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-08
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
879-891
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W1970492040
Cited by
194
References
1
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Evaluation of remote‐sensing‐based rainfall products through predictive capability in hydrological runoff modelling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hyp.7529
The paper
Stisen, S., & Sandholt, I. (2010). Evaluation of remote‐sensing‐based rainfall products through predictive capability in hydrological runoff modelling. Hydrological Processes. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7529

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.