The DOI matches its Crossref record.
National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) performance in southern Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma in 2003–2004
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
The global lightning-induced nitrogen oxides source
Schumann, U., & Huntrieser, H. (2007) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-7-3823-2007 · Cited by 708
Abarca, S. F., Corbosiero, K. L., & Galarneau, T. J. (2010) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2009jd013411 · Cited by 309
Quantifying the human influence on fire ignition across the western USA
Fusco, E. J., Abatzoglou, J. T., Balch, J. K., Finn, J. T., & Bradley, B. A. (2016) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.1395 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Biagi, C. J., Cummins, K. L., Kehoe, K. E., & Krider, E. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- 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.