Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Intercomparison of Drought Indicators Based on Thermal Remote Sensing and NLDAS-2 Simulations with U.S. Drought Monitor Classifications

Open access
Anderson, Martha C., Hain, Christopher, Otkin, Jason, Zhan, Xiwu, Mo, Kingtse, Svoboda, Mark, Wardlow, Brian, Pimstein, Agustin·2013·Journal of Hydrometeorology

Abstract

Comparison of multiple hydrologic indicators, derived from independent data sources and modeling approaches, may improve confidence in signals of emerging drought, particularly during periods of rapid onset. This paper compares the evaporative stress index (ESI)—a diagnostic fast-response indicator describing evapotranspiration (ET) deficits derived within a thermal remote sensing energy balance framework—with prognostic estimates of soil moisture (SM), ET, and runoff anomalies generated with the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS). Widely used empirical indices based on thermal remote sensing [vegetation health index (VHI)] and precipitation percentiles [standardized precipitation index (SPI)] were also included to assess relative performance. Spatial and temporal correlations computed between indices over the contiguous United States were compared with historical drought classifications recorded in the U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM). Based on correlation results, improved forms for the ESI were identified, incorporating a Penman–Monteith reference ET scaling flux and implementing a temporal smoothing algorithm at the pixel level. Of all indices evaluated, anomalies in the NLDAS ensemble-averaged SM provided the highest correlations with USDM drought classes, while the ESI yielded the best performance of the remote sensing indices. The VHI provided reasonable correlations, except under conditions of energy-limited vegetation growth during the cold season and at high latitudes. Change indices computed from ESI and SM time series agree well, and in combination offer a good indicator of change in drought severity class in the USDM, often preceding USDM class deterioration by several weeks. Results suggest that a merged ESI–SM change indicator may provide valuable early warning of rapidly evolving “flash drought” conditions.

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/jhm-d-12-0140.1

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 297

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, M. C., Hain, C., Otkin, J., Zhan, X., Mo, K., Svoboda, M., Wardlow, B., & Pimstein, A.
Venue
Journal of Hydrometeorology
Published
2013-08-01
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
1035-1056
ISSN
  • 1525-7541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-755X
OpenAlex
W2069579482
Cited by
297
References
1
FWCI
12.09
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: An Intercomparison of Drought Indicators Based on Thermal Remote Sensing and NLDAS-2 Simulations with U.S. Drought Monitor Classifications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jhm-d-12-0140.1
The paper
Anderson, M. C., Hain, C., Otkin, J., Zhan, X., Mo, K., Svoboda, M., Wardlow, B., & Pimstein, A. (2013). An Intercomparison of Drought Indicators Based on Thermal Remote Sensing and NLDAS-2 Simulations with U.S. Drought Monitor Classifications. Journal of Hydrometeorology. https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-12-0140.1

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.