Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of Satellite-Based Precipitation Products over Sparsely Gauged African River Basins

Thiemig, Vera, Rojas, Rodrigo, Zambrano-Bigiarini, Mauricio, Levizzani, Vincenzo, De Roo, Ad·2012·Journal of Hydrometeorology

Abstract

Six satellite-based rainfall estimates (SRFE)—namely, Climate Prediction Center (CPC) morphing technique (CMORPH), the Rainfall Estimation Algorithm, version 2 (RFE2.0), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) 3B42, Goddard profiling algorithm, version 6 (GPROF 6.0), Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN), Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation moving vector with Kalman filter (GSMap MVK), and one reanalysis product [the interim ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim)]—were validated against 205 rain gauge stations over four African river basins (Zambezi, Volta, Juba–Shabelle, and Baro–Akobo). Validation focused on rainfall characteristics relevant to hydrological applications, such as annual catchment totals, spatial distribution patterns, seasonality, number of rainy days per year, and timing and volume of heavy rainfall events. Validation was done at three spatially aggregated levels: point-to-pixel, subcatchment, and river basin for the period 2003–06. Performance of satellite-based rainfall estimation (SRFE) was assessed using standard statistical methods and visual inspection. SRFE showed 1) accuracy in reproducing precipitation on a monthly basis during the dry season, 2) an ability to replicate bimodal precipitation patterns, 3) superior performance over the tropical wet and dry zone than over semiarid or mountainous regions, 4) increasing uncertainty in the estimation of higher-end percentiles of daily precipitation, 5) low accuracy in detecting heavy rainfall events over semiarid areas, 6) general underestimation of heavy rainfall events, and 7) overestimation of number of rainy days in the tropics. In respect to SRFE performance, GPROF 6.0 and GSMaP-MKV were the least accurate, and RFE 2.0 and TRMM 3B42 were the most accurate. These results allow discrimination between the available products and the reduction of potential errors caused by selecting a product that is not suitable for particular morphoclimatic conditions. For hydrometeorological applications, results support the use of a performance-based merged product that combines the strength of multiple SRFEs.

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-12-032.1

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Thiemig, V., Rojas, R., Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., Levizzani, V., & De Roo, A.
Venue
Journal of Hydrometeorology
Published
2012-12-01
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
1760-1783
ISSN
  • 1525-7541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-755X
OpenAlex
W2074338125
Cited by
309
References
32
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Validation of Satellite-Based Precipitation Products over Sparsely Gauged African River Basins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jhm-d-12-032.1
The paper
Thiemig, V., Rojas, R., Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., Levizzani, V., & De Roo, A. (2012). Validation of Satellite-Based Precipitation Products over Sparsely Gauged African River Basins. Journal of Hydrometeorology. https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-12-032.1

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.