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; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global Reconstruction of Naturalized River Flows at 2.94 Million Reaches

Open access
Lin, Peirong, Pan, Ming, Beck, Hylke E., Yang, Yuan, Yamazaki, Dai, Frasson, Renato, David, Cédric H., Durand, Michael, Pavelsky, Tamlin M., Allen, George H., Gleason, Colin J., Wood, Eric F.·2019·Water Resources Research

Abstract

Spatiotemporally continuous global river discharge estimates across the full spectrum of stream orders are vital to a range of hydrologic applications, yet they remain poorly constrained. Here we present a carefully designed modeling effort (Variable Infiltration Capacity land surface model and Routing Application for Parallel computatIon of Discharge river routing model) to estimate global river discharge at very high resolutions. The precipitation forcing is from a recently published 0.1° global product that optimally merged gauge‐, reanalysis‐, and satellite‐based data. To constrain runoff simulations, we use a set of machine learning‐derived, global runoff characteristics maps (i.e., runoff at various exceedance probability percentiles) for grid‐by‐grid model calibration and bias correction. To support spaceborne discharge studies, the river flowlines are defined at their true geometry and location as much as possible—approximately 2.94 million vector flowlines (median length 6.8 km) and unit catchments are derived from a high‐accuracy global digital elevation model at 3‐arcsec resolution (~90 m), which serves as the underlying hydrography for river routing. Our 35‐year daily and monthly model simulations are evaluated against over 14,000 gauges globally. Among them, 35% (64%) have a percentage bias within ±20% (±50%), and 29% (62%) have a monthly Kling‐Gupta Efficiency ≥0.6 (0.2), showing data robustness at the scale the model is assessed. This reconstructed discharge record can be used as a priori information for the Surface Water and Ocean Topography satellite mission's discharge product, thus named “Global Reach‐level A priori Discharge Estimates for Surface Water and Ocean Topography”. It can also be used in other hydrologic applications requiring spatially explicit estimates of global river flows.

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 · 10.1029/2019wr025287

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The hydrologic modeling workflow and data sets to constrain the global simulation. VIC = Variable Infiltration Capacity; LSM = land surface model; RAPID = Routing Application for Parallel computatIon of Discharge; MSWEP = Multi‐Source Weighted‐Ensemble Precipitation.
Figure 1 The hydrologic modeling workflow and data sets to constrain the global simulation. VIC = Variable Infiltration Capacity; LSM = land surface model; RAPID = Routing Application for Parallel computatIon of Discharge; MSWEP = Multi‐Source Weighted‐Ensemble Precipitation.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Schematics of the newly developed bias correction approach. Stars mark the grid cell under bias correction: dynamic LSM runoff time series are used for cumulative density function construction (blue line) and static runoff characteristics maps are used as the reference (red points). LSM = land surface model.
Figure 2 Schematics of the newly developed bias correction approach. Stars mark the grid cell under bias correction: dynamic LSM runoff time series are used for cumulative density function construction (blue line) and static runoff characteristics maps are used as the reference (red points). LSM = land surface model.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Global stream gauges used in model evaluation from (a) different gauge networks. Gauges are classified based on if they are influenced by (b) dams and (c) lakes or not. If influenced by dams/lakes, colors show the number of dams/lakes upstream. USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; GRDC = Global Runoff Data Centre.
Figure 3 Global stream gauges used in model evaluation from (a) different gauge networks. Gauges are classified based on if they are influenced by (b) dams and (c) lakes or not. If influenced by dams/lakes, colors show the number of dams/lakes upstream. USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; GRDC = Global Runoff Data Centre.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Histogram of (a) stream order and (b) drainage basin area (km2) of the gauges shown in Figure 3a.
Figure 4 Histogram of (a) stream order and (b) drainage basin area (km2) of the gauges shown in Figure 3a.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Global streamflow modeling evaluated against over 14,000 gauges (left column: daily; right column: monthly). Results shown are correlation coefficient (a, b), percentage bias (c, d), relative variability (e, f), and the Kling‐Gupta Efficiency (g, h). Note the CC plot has a range of 0 to 1 because only ~1% of gauges have negative CC; the PBIAS plot has asymmetric ranges because of its definition that can result into asymmetric values for dry and wet biases. CC = correlation coefficient; RV = relative variability; KGE = Kling‐Gupta Efficiency; PBIAS = percentage bias.
Figure 5 Global streamflow modeling evaluated against over 14,000 gauges (left column: daily; right column: monthly). Results shown are correlation coefficient (a, b), percentage bias (c, d), relative variability (e, f), and the Kling‐Gupta Efficiency (g, h). Note the CC plot has a range of 0 to 1 because only ~1% of gauges have negative CC; the PBIAS plot has asymmetric ranges because of its definition that can result into asymmetric values for dry and wet biases. CC = correlation coefficient; RV = relative variability; KGE = Kling‐Gupta Efficiency; PBIAS = percentage bias.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Effectiveness of the bias correction approach against nine runoff characteristics. The spatial plot shows the percentage bias (%) of the original model simulation; (a)–(g) show the CDF and time series change before (blue) and after bias correction (orange) at seven example grid cells. For clarity, only the runoff time series for Year 1979 are shown. CDF = cumulative density function.
Figure 6 Effectiveness of the bias correction approach against nine runoff characteristics. The spatial plot shows the percentage bias (%) of the original model simulation; (a)–(g) show the CDF and time series change before (blue) and after bias correction (orange) at seven example grid cells. For clarity, only the runoff time series for Year 1979 are shown. CDF = cumulative density function.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 The same as Figure 5, but for the simulation performance after bias correction.
Figure 7 The same as Figure 5, but for the simulation performance after bias correction.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Histogram of the (a) CC, (b) PBIAS, (c) RV, and (d) KGE skill changes before (blue) and after BC (red bars) for the monthly simulation. CC = correlation coefficient; RV = relative variability; KGE = Kling‐Gupta Efficiency; PBIAS = percentage bias; BC = bias correction.
Figure 8 Histogram of the (a) CC, (b) PBIAS, (c) RV, and (d) KGE skill changes before (blue) and after BC (red bars) for the monthly simulation. CC = correlation coefficient; RV = relative variability; KGE = Kling‐Gupta Efficiency; PBIAS = percentage bias; BC = bias correction.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Boxplot of the model performance statistics based on (a) dam regulation and (b) lake impacts. The left (right) column in each plot shows gauges with (without) the influence from dams or lakes. Statistics for experiment with no BC and that with BC are shown in green and blue boxes, respectively. CC = correlation coefficient; RV = relative variability; KGE = Kling‐Gupta Efficiency; PBIAS = percentage bias; BC = bias correction.
Figure 9 Boxplot of the model performance statistics based on (a) dam regulation and (b) lake impacts. The left (right) column in each plot shows gauges with (without) the influence from dams or lakes. Statistics for experiment with no BC and that with BC are shown in green and blue boxes, respectively. CC = correlation coefficient; RV = relative variability; KGE = Kling‐Gupta Efficiency; PBIAS = percentage bias; BC = bias correction.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Same as Figure 9, but for (a, left) drainage area and (b, right) aridity.
Figure 10 Same as Figure 9, but for (a, left) drainage area and (b, right) aridity.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 11 (a) The global river width and (b) the Variable Infiltration Capacity‐Routing Application for Parallel computatIon of Discharge‐simulated mean annual discharge for the river reaches observable by SWOT (width >50 m, as determined using GRWL)—there are 211,968 such reaches, taking up 8.8% of the total modeled reaches. Cross‐sectional width measurements are obtained from the GRWL database (Allen & Pavelsky, 2018) and are averaged over the Multi‐Error‐Removed‐Improved‐Terrain reaches, excluding measurements with lake/reservoir tags and multichannels. Note that SWOT will not observe a handful of reaches north of 78N, but they are not differentiated here. GRWL = Global River Widths from Landsat; SWOT = Surface Water and Ocean Topography.
Figure 11 (a) The global river width and (b) the Variable Infiltration Capacity‐Routing Application for Parallel computatIon of Discharge‐simulated mean annual discharge for the river reaches observable by SWOT (width >50 m, as determined using GRWL)—there are 211,968 such reaches, taking up 8.8% of the total modeled reaches. Cross‐sectional width measurements are obtained from the GRWL database (Allen & Pavelsky, 2018) and are averaged over the Multi‐Error‐Removed‐Improved‐Terrain reaches, excluding measurements with lake/reservoir tags and multichannels. Note that SWOT will not observe a handful of reaches north of 78N, but they are not differentiated here. GRWL = Global River Widths from Landsat; SWOT = Surface Water and Ocean Topography.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. 10.1002/joc.5131 · doi:10.1002/joc.5131
  2. 10.1029/2018GL077914 · DOI
  3. 10.1126/science.aat0636 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1038/s41467‐018‐02991‐w · DOI
  5. 10.1002/wrcr.20440 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1175/JHM‐D‐14‐0155.1 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.5194/hess‐21‐2881‐2017 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1002/2013WR013918 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1038/ngeo1593 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1109/JSTARS.2009.2034614 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/s10712‐015‐9346‐y · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1002/hyp.10391 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.005 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.005
  15. 10.1002/2015WR017296 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/ngeo2720 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1029/2012WR012138 · doi:10.1029/2012wr012138
  19. 10.1175/2011JHM1345.1 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.011 · DOI
  21. 10.1175/2010JHM1212.1 · DOI
  22. 10.1002/2015WR018545 · doi:10.1002/2015wr018545
  23. 10.5268/IW‐2.4.502 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1002/2015WR018434 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1029/2019GL082027 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1073/pnas.1317606111 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1002/2014WR016109 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.188 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1175/JHM‐D‐14‐0107.1 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-14-0107.1
  31. 10.1002/2017WR021626 · doi:10.1002/2017wr021626
  32. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.11.011 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1002/hyp.7794 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1029/2018WR022708 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1002/2014GB004941 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1002/hyp.9740 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Lehner B., 2006, HydroSHEDS technical documentation, version 1.0, 1
  39. 10.1175/JHM‐D‐12‐015.1 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1029/94JD00483 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1175/JHM‐D‐18‐0038.1 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/1752‐1688.12585 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.05.018 · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.05.018
  44. 10.1080/02626669809492107 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1002/2016RG000547 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1038/ncomms13603 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1175/1520‐0442(1994)007<0914:CSRFIC>2.0.CO;2 · doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007<0914:csrfic>2.0.co;2
  48. 10.5194/hess‐19‐209‐2015 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.5194/hessd‐4‐4389‐2007 · DOI
  50. 10.1175/1087‐3562(1998)002<0001:DOTRIP>2.3.CO;2 · doi:10.1175/1087-3562(1998)002<0001:dotrip>2.3.co;2
  51. 10.5194/hess‐17‐1783‐2013 · doi:10.5194/hess-17-1783-2013
  52. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.08.044 · DOI · Paper page
  53. 10.1080/02626668809491261 · doi:10.1080/02626668809491261
  54. 10.1029/2004GL020938 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1016/S0022‐1694(00)00178‐5 · DOI
  56. 10.1029/2008WR007327 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.5194/hess‐23‐595‐2019 · doi:10.5194/hess-23-595-2019
  58. 10.1002/hyp.5155 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.5194/gmd‐11‐2429‐2018 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.3390/rs5094145 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 10.1111/1752‐1688.12456 · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12456
  62. 10.1029/2018GL080771 · doi:10.1029/2018gl080771
  63. 10.5194/hess‐14‐1‐2010 · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.1029/2010WR010090 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 10.1002/2013WR014710 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1029/2012WR012313 · DOI · Paper page
  67. 10.1029/2011JD016051 · DOI · Paper page
  68. 10.1002/wrcr.20552 · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.1029/2019WR024873 · DOI · Paper page
  70. 10.1002/2017GL072874 · DOI · Paper page
  71. 10.1029/2010WR009726 · DOI · Paper page
  72. 10.1029/96WR02840 · doi:10.1029/96wr02840
  73. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
  74. 10.1029/2018WR023325 · DOI · Paper page
  75. 10.1029/2017WR022236 · doi:10.1029/2017wr022236
  76. 10.1029/2006JD007534 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 463

Metadata

Authors
Lin, P., Pan, M., Beck, H. E., Yang, Y., Yamazaki, D., Frasson, R., David, C. H., Durand, M., Pavelsky, T. M., Allen, G. H., Gleason, C. J., & Wood, E. F.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
2019-08
Volume
55
Issue
8
Pages
6499-6516
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W2963255299
Cited by
463
References
4
FWCI
16.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Funders
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX15AH05A)

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: Global Reconstruction of Naturalized River Flows at 2.94 Million Reaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2019wr025287
The paper
Lin, P., Pan, M., Beck, H. E., Yang, Y., Yamazaki, D., Frasson, R., David, C. H., Durand, M., Pavelsky, T. M., Allen, G. H., Gleason, C. J., & Wood, E. F. (2019). Global Reconstruction of Naturalized River Flows at 2.94 Million Reaches. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019wr025287

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.