Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 241

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) performance in southern Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma in 2003–2004

Open access
Biagi, Christopher J., Cummins, Kenneth L., Kehoe, Kenneth E., Krider, E. Philip·2007·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

Four field campaigns were conducted in southern Arizona (AZ) and in northern Texas and southern Oklahoma (TX‐OK) in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate the performance of the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network™ (NLDN) in detecting cloud‐to‐ground (CG) lightning after an upgrade in 2002 and 2003. The 2‐year average flash detection efficiency (DE) in AZ was 93% (1024/1097), and the measured (first plus subsequent) stroke DE was 76% (2746/3620). The corresponding values in TX‐OK were 92% (338/367) and 86% (755/882), respectively. After correcting for the time resolution of the video camera (16.7 ms), we estimate that the actual NLDN stroke DE and video multiplicities were about 68% and 3.71 in AZ and 77% and 2.80 in TX‐OK. The average DE for negative first strokes (92%) was larger than the measured DE for subsequent strokes that produced a new ground contact (81%) and the DE for subsequent strokes that remained in a preexisting channel (67%). The primary cause of the NLDN missing strokes was that the peak of the radiated electromagnetic field was below the NLDN detection threshold. The average estimated peak current (Ip) of negative first strokes and the average multiplicity of negative flashes varied from storm to storm and between the two regions, but this variability did not affect the DE as long as the recording sessions had more than 60 flashes. By analyzing the NLDN locations of subsequent strokes that remained in the same channel as the first stroke we infer that the median random position error of the NLDN was 424 m in A Z and 282 m in TX‐OK. An evaluation of the classification of lightning type by the NLDN (i.e., CG stroke versus cloud pulse) showed that 1.4–7% (6/420 to 6/86) of the positive NLDN reports with an Ip ≤ 10 kA in TX‐OK were produced by CG strokes; 4.7–26% (5/106 to 5/19) of the positive reports with 10 kA < Ip ≤ 20 kA were CGs; and 67–95% (30/45 to 30/32) of the reports with Ip ≥ +20 kA were CG strokes. Some 50–87% (52/104 to 52/60) of the negative, single‐stroke NLDN reports in AZ and TX‐OK with ∣Ip∣ ≤ 10 kA were produced by CG flashes. Both the upper and lower bounds in these classification studies have observational biases.

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 · 10.1029/2006jd007341

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 241

Metadata

Authors
Biagi, C. J., Cummins, K. L., Kehoe, K. E., & Krider, E. P.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2007-03-09
Volume
112
Issue
D5
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975699467
Cited by
241
References
0
FWCI
9.46
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: National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) performance in southern Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma in 2003–2004. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2006jd007341
The paper
Biagi, C. J., Cummins, K. L., Kehoe, K. E., & Krider, E. P. (2007). National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) performance in southern Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma in 2003–2004. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007341

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.