Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 463

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 access
Xia, Youlong, Mitchell, Kenneth, Ek, Michael, Cosgrove, Brian, Sheffield, Justin, Luo, Lifeng, Alonge, Charles, Wei, Helin, Meng, Jesse, Livneh, Ben, Duan, Qingyun, Lohmann, Dag·2012·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2011jd016051

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 463

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
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.