The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Continental‐scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS‐2): 2. Validation of model‐simulated streamflow
Open accessAbstract
This is the second part of a study on continental‐scale water and energy flux analysis and validation conducted in phase 2 of the North American Land Data Assimilation System project (NLDAS‐2). The first part concentrates on a model‐by‐model comparison of mean annual and monthly water fluxes, energy fluxes and state variables. In this second part, the focus is on the validation of simulated streamflow from four land surface models (Noah, Mosaic, Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting (SAC‐SMA), and Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) models) and their ensemble mean. Comparisons are made against 28‐years (1 October 1979–30 September 2007) of United States Geological Survey observed streamflow for 961 small basins and 8 major basins over the conterminous United States (CONUS). Relative bias, anomaly correlation and Nash‐Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) statistics at daily to annual time scales are used to assess model‐simulated streamflow. The Noah (the Mosaic) model overestimates (underestimates) mean annual runoff and underestimates (overestimates) mean annual evapotranspiration. The SAC‐SMA and VIC models simulate the mean annual runoff and evapotranspiration well when compared with the observations. The ensemble mean is closer to the mean annual observed streamflow for both the 961 small basins and the 8 major basins than is the mean from any individual model. All of the models, as well as the ensemble mean, have large daily, weekly, monthly, and annual streamflow anomaly correlations for most basins over the CONUS, implying strong simulation skill. However, the daily, weekly, and monthly NSE analysis results are not necessarily encouraging, in particular for daily streamflow. The Noah and Mosaic models are useful (NSE > 0.4) only for about 10% of the 961 small basins, the SAC‐SMA and VIC models are useful for about 30% of the 961 small basins, and the ensemble mean is useful for about 42% of the 961 small basins. As the time scale increases, the NSE increases as expected. However, even for monthly streamflow, the ensemble mean is useful for only 75% of the 961 small basins.
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
Cites
Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging
Duan, Q., Ajami, N. K., Gao, X., & Sorooshian, S. (2007) · Advances in Water Resources · doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.11.014 · Cited by 724
Self-citation
Cited by
Meteorological conditions associated with the onset of flash drought in the Eastern United States
Ford, T. W., & Labosier, C. F. (2017) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.08.031 · Cited by 322
The Value of SMAP for Long-Term Soil Moisture Estimation With the Help of Deep Learning
Fang, K., Pan, M., & Shen, C. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2018.2872131 · Cited by 186
Metadata
- Authors
- Xia, Y., Mitchell, K., Ek, M., Cosgrove, B., Sheffield, J., Luo, L., Alonge, C., Wei, H., Meng, J., Livneh, B., Duan, Q., & Lohmann, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2012-02-03
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- D3
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2152977202
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.78
- 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: Continental‐scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS‐2): 2. Validation of model‐simulated streamflow. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2011jd016051
- The paper
- Xia, Y., Mitchell, K., Ek, M., Cosgrove, B., Sheffield, J., Luo, L., Alonge, C., Wei, H., Meng, J., Livneh, B., Duan, Q., & Lohmann, D. (2012). Continental‐scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS‐2): 2. Validation of model‐simulated streamflow. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jd016051
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.