Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Streamflow and water balance intercomparisons of four land surface models in the North American Land Data Assimilation System project

Lohmann, Dag, Mitchell, Kenneth E., Houser, Paul R., Wood, Eric F., Schaake, John C., Robock, Alan, Cosgrove, Brian A., Sheffield, Justin, Duan, Qingyun, Luo, Lifeng, Higgins, R. Wayne, Pinker, Rachel T., Tarpley, J. Dan·2004·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

This paper is part of a series of papers about the multi‐institutional North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) project. It compares and evaluates streamflow and water balance results from four different land surface models (LSMs) within the continental United States. These LSMs have been run for the retrospective period from 1 October 1996 to 30 September 1999 forced by atmospheric observations from the Eta Data Assimilation System (EDAS) analysis, measured precipitation, and satellite‐derived downward solar radiation. These model runs were performed on a common 1/8° latitude‐longitude grid and used the same database for soil and vegetation classifications. We have evaluated these simulations using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measured daily streamflow data for 9 large major basins and 1145 small‐ to medium‐sized basins from 23 km 2 to 10,000 km 2 distributed over the NLDAS domain. Model runoff was routed with a common distributed and a lumped optimized linear routing model. The diagnosis of the model water balance results demonstrates strengths and weaknesses in the models, our insufficient knowledge of ad hoc parameters used for the model runs, the interdependence of model structure and model physics, and the lack of good forcing data in parts of the United States, especially in regions with extended snow cover. Overall, the differences between the LSM water balance terms are of the same magnitude as the mean water balance terms themselves. The modeled mean annual runoff shows large regional differences by a factor of up to 4 between models. The corresponding difference in mean annual evapotranspiration is about a factor of 2. The analysis of runoff timing for the LSMs demonstrates the importance of correct snowmelt timing, where the resulting differences in streamflow timing can be up to four months. Runoff is underestimated by all LSMs in areas with significant snowfall.

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 · 10.1029/2003jd003517

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.

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 163

Metadata

Authors
Lohmann, D., Mitchell, K. E., Houser, P. R., Wood, E. F., Schaake, J. C., Robock, A., Cosgrove, B. A., Sheffield, J., Duan, Q., Luo, L., Higgins, R. W., Pinker, R. T., & Tarpley, J. D.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2004-04-09
Volume
109
Issue
D7
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107201215
Cited by
163
References
0
FWCI
12.24
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: Streamflow and water balance intercomparisons of four land surface models in the North American Land Data Assimilation System project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2003jd003517
The paper
Lohmann, D., Mitchell, K. E., Houser, P. R., Wood, E. F., Schaake, J. C., Robock, A., Cosgrove, B. A., Sheffield, J., Duan, Q., Luo, L., Higgins, R. W., Pinker, R. T., & Tarpley, J. D. (2004). Streamflow and water balance intercomparisons of four land surface models in the North American Land Data Assimilation System project. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003jd003517

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.