Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 394

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessment of MERRA-2 Land Surface Hydrology Estimates

Open access
Reichle, Rolf H., Draper, Clara S., Liu, Q., Girotto, Manuela, Mahanama, Sarith P. P., Koster, Randal D., De Lannoy, Gabrielle J. M.·2017·Journal of Climate

Abstract

The MERRA-2 atmospheric reanalysis product provides global, 1-hourly estimates of land surface conditions for 1980–present at ~50-km resolution. MERRA-2 uses observations-based precipitation to force the land (unlike its predecessor, MERRA). This paper evaluates MERRA-2 and MERRA land hydrology estimates, along with those of the land-only MERRA-Land and ERA-Interim/Land products, which also use observations-based precipitation. Overall, MERRA-2 land hydrology estimates are better than those of MERRA-Land and MERRA. A comparison against GRACE satellite observations of terrestrial water storage demonstrates clear improvements in MERRA-2 over MERRA in South America and Africa but also reflects known errors in the observations used to correct the MERRA-2 precipitation. Validation against in situ measurements from 220–320 stations in North America, Europe, and Australia shows that MERRA-2 and MERRA-Land have the highest surface and root zone soil moisture skill, slightly higher than that of ERA-Interim/Land and higher than that of MERRA (significantly for surface soil moisture). Snow amounts from MERRA-2 have lower bias and correlate better against reference data from the Canadian Meteorological Centre than do those of MERRA-Land and MERRA, with MERRA-2 skill roughly matching that of ERA-Interim/Land. Validation with MODIS satellite observations shows that MERRA-2 has a lower snow cover probability of detection and probability of false detection than MERRA, owing partly to MERRA-2’s lower midwinter, midlatitude snow amounts and partly to MERRA-2’s revised snow depletion curve parameter compared to MERRA. Finally, seasonal anomaly R values against naturalized streamflow measurements in the United States are, on balance, highest for MERRA-2 and ERA-Interim/Land, somewhat lower for MERRA-Land, and lower still for MERRA (significantly in four 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 · 10.1175/jcli-d-16-0720.1

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 394

Metadata

Authors
Reichle, R. H., Draper, C. S., Liu, Q., Girotto, M., Mahanama, S. P. P., Koster, R. D., & De Lannoy, G. J. M.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Published
2017-04
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
2937-2960
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
OpenAlex
W2566089477
Cited by
394
References
0
FWCI
17.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Assessment of MERRA-2 Land Surface Hydrology Estimates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0720.1
The paper
Reichle, R. H., Draper, C. S., Liu, Q., Girotto, M., Mahanama, S. P. P., Koster, R. D., & De Lannoy, G. J. M. (2017). Assessment of MERRA-2 Land Surface Hydrology Estimates. Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0720.1

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.