Cited by 8Precipitation Measurement and AnalysisHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesEnvironmental Monitoring and Data Management

Quality control of hourly rain gauge data based on radar and satellite multi-source data

Open access
Yan, Qiaoqiao, Zhang, Bingsong, Jiang, Yi, Liu, Ying, Yang, Bin, Wang, Haijun·2024·Journal of Hydroinformatics

Abstract

ABSTRACT Rain gauge networks provide direct precipitation measurements and have been widely used in hydrology, synoptic-scale meteorology, and climatology. However, rain gauge observations are subject to a variety of error sources, and quality control (QC) is required to ensure the reasonable use. In order to enhance the automatic detection ability of anomalies in data, the novel multi-source data quality control (NMQC) method is proposed for hourly rain gauge data. It employs a phased strategy to reduce the misjudgment risk caused by the uncertainty from radar and satellite remote-sensing measurements. NMQC is applied for the QC of hourly gauge data from more than 24,000 hydro-meteorological stations in the Yangtze River basin in 2020. The results show that its detection ratio of anomalous data is 1.73‰, only 1.73% of which are suspicious data needing to be confirmed by experts. Moreover, the distribution characteristics of anomaly data are consistent with the climatic characteristics of the study region as well as measurement and maintenance modes of rain gauges. Overall, NMQC has a strong ability to label anomaly data automatically, while identifying a lower proportion of suspicious data. It can greatly reduce manual intervention and shorten the impact time of anomaly data in the operational work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2166/hydro.2024.272

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Compared with traditional approaches, multi-source collaborative QC methods integrate various observational data and effectively reduce the false alarm rate in anomaly detection.

    “Compared with traditional approaches, these methods integrate various observational data, including Doppler weather radar, geostationary meteorological satellite, and weather detector, effectively reducing the false alarm rate in anomaly detection [27][28][29].”
  • Multi-source data collaborative QC for precipitation has demonstrated significant advantages.

    “With the advancement of ground-and satellite-based observation technologies and the explosive growth of meteorological data, multi-source data collaborative QC for precipitation has demonstrated significant advantages [27][28][29][30][31].”
  • When an observed hourly precipitation has a lower CR, the record is highly likely to be attributed to manual operational errors, such as garden watering or cleaning the gauge without disconnecting communication.

    “Consequently, when an observed hourly precipitation with a lower CR, the record is highly likely to be attributed to manual operational errors, such as garden watering, cleaning the gauge without disconnecting communication [23,28,29].”
  • Anomalously high minute-level precipitation values were likely induced by instrumental malfunctions, such as persistent false triggering of a reed switch in a tipping-bucket rain gauge due to metal fatigue or foreign object adhesion.

    “These anomalously high minute values were likely to be induced by instrumental malfunctions [14,21,25,29], such as the persistent false triggering of a reed switch in a tipping-bucket rain gauge due to metal fatigue or foreign object adhesion, leading to an abnormally high count within a single minute.”
  • The discrepancy between low PRE_1m_Max and high hourly precipitation is likely caused by data encoding or transmission errors.

    “This discrepancy is likely caused by data encoding or transmission errors [25,29];”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yan, Q., Zhang, B., Jiang, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, B., & Wang, H.
Affiliations
  • Hainan Meteorology Administration (CN)
  • a Hubei Meteorological Information and Technology Support Center, Wuhan 430074, China
  • Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Yan, Qiaoqiao
Venue
Journal of Hydroinformatics
Published
2024-04-18
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
1042-1058
ISSN
  • 1464-7141 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1734
OpenAlex
W4394932143
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hydroinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Yangtze River Basin Meteorological Open Fund Project (CJLY2022Y08)
  • Key Laboratory of South China Sea Meteorological Disaster Prevention and Mitigation of Hainan Province Open Fund Project (SCSF202209)
  • China Yangtze Power Company Limited Scientific Research Project (2423020002)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geology › Environmental Monitoring and Data Management
Keywords
hourly rainfall, multi-source data fusion, radar remote sensing, satellite remote sensing, precipitation measurement error, Yangtze River Basin

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