2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124664
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A spatiotemporal deep fusion model for merging satellite and gauge precipitation in China

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
68
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
68
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Wehbe et al [51] used ANN to develop MSPD by merging weather radar, SPDs, and RGs. Wu et al [52] developed MSPD using SPDs and RGs by employing a spatiotemporal deep fusion (SDF) algorithm over China. Yin et al [53] developed MSPD using the cuckoo search (CS) algorithm and BMA at threestages over China.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wehbe et al [51] used ANN to develop MSPD by merging weather radar, SPDs, and RGs. Wu et al [52] developed MSPD using SPDs and RGs by employing a spatiotemporal deep fusion (SDF) algorithm over China. Yin et al [53] developed MSPD using the cuckoo search (CS) algorithm and BMA at threestages over China.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…daily or hourly) is challenging and valuable (Chen et al, 2020b;R. Lima et al, 2021;Sun and Lan, 2021;Wu et al, 2020). Whether our method could be applied on these scales might need validation.…”
Section: Further Researchesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To alleviate the inherent biases, many calibration methods have been proposed for merging gauge observations and satellite-based precipitation to improve the accuracy and spatial coverage of precipitation, such as nonparametric kernel smoothing method (Li and Shao, 2010), geographical difference analysis (GDA) (Cheema and Bastiaanssen, 2012), geographical ratio analysis (GRA) (Duan and Bastiaanssen, 2013), conditional merging (CM) (Berndt et al, 2014), quantile mapping (Chen et al, 2013;Zhang and Tang, 2015), optimal interpolation (Lu et al, 2020;Wu et al, 2018;Xie and Xiong, 2011), GWR (Chao et al, 2018;Chen et al, 2018;Lu et al, 2019) and geostatistical interpolation (Park et al, 2017). However, these methods are based on some strict assumptions which might not be satisfied in practice (Wu et al, 2020;Zhang et al, 2021). Moreover, the precipitation-related environmental variables were not taken into account.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…e spatial distributions of the metrics for the three models' 6-minute precipitation estimations over the study area are shown in Figure 7. Based on the observations from the 260 Automatic Weather Stations (AWSs), the CC, RMSE, MAE, and MB of the precipitation estimates obtained using the Z-R (1), MLP model, and FFNet-LSTM (Loss_Sum) were calculated for each gauge, and the gauge values were interpolated into others using the inverse distance weighting (IDW) interpolation to obtain the spatial distribution of the metrics [70]. As shown in Figure 8, the correlation coefficients of the Z-R (1) and MLP model have a large area of low values in the center of the study area, while the FFNet-LSTM (Loss_Sum) reduces the area of the low CC values in the center area and further improves the overall correlation coefficient of the study area.…”
Section: Spatial Distribution Of the Metrics For The Different Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%