2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.07.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of satellite rainfall products over the Andean plateau

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
76
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
9
76
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…During wet seasons for all considered regions, TMPA presents CC higher than 0.7, RMSE close to 50% and Bias values into the −10%-10% intervals (Table 2; Figure 3). These specific values were previously defined as objective values to ensure the good performance of SREs at monthly scale [9,10,19,30]. Results over the TDPS and for TMPA are in line with a previous study of the [2005][2006][2007] period [9] with similar CC, RMSE and Bias values.…”
Section: Annual Scalesupporting
confidence: 72%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…During wet seasons for all considered regions, TMPA presents CC higher than 0.7, RMSE close to 50% and Bias values into the −10%-10% intervals (Table 2; Figure 3). These specific values were previously defined as objective values to ensure the good performance of SREs at monthly scale [9,10,19,30]. Results over the TDPS and for TMPA are in line with a previous study of the [2005][2006][2007] period [9] with similar CC, RMSE and Bias values.…”
Section: Annual Scalesupporting
confidence: 72%
“…According to this characterization, several statistical parameters can be computed: the Probability of Detection (POD), the False Alarm Ratio (FAR), the Critical Success Index (CSI) and the Bias (B) (Equations (1)- (4)) [9,[18][19][20][21][22][23].…”
Section: Comparison Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the quantitative statistics, mean error (ME) or bias, and root mean squared error (RMSE) were calculated based on Wilks (2006), and Nash Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) 10 coefficient based on Nash and Sutcliffe (1970) was used as well. Additionally and similar to Blacutt et al (2015) and Satgé et al (2016), we used the Spearman rank correlation to estimate the goodness of fit to observations, the bias to show the degree of over-or underestimation (Duan et al, 2015), the root mean square error (RMSE) to compute the average magnitude of the estimated errors (values closer to zero generally indicate smaller magnitude of error), and finally the Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency coefficient that evaluates the prediction accuracy compared to observations (1 corresponds to a perfect match between gauge 15 observation and satellite-based estimate and zero indicates that the satellite estimations are as accurate as the mean of the observed data; negative values indicate that the observed mean is better than satellite-based estimate, see Nash and Sutcliffe (1970) for more details). To evaluate results, correlation coefficients larger or equal to 0.7 with a significance level of 0.01 were considered as reliable (Satgé et al, 2016;Condom et al, 2011 (Bartholmes et al, 2009;Ochoa et al, 2014;Satgé et al, 2016).…”
Section: Validation Of Satellite Rainfall Product Using Gauge-measurementioning
confidence: 49%
“…The satellite rain data was tested with gauged precipitation using the same methodology employed (for comparison reasons) in Blacutt et al (2015) and Satgé et al (2016) who did a similar analysis for Boliva but with different satellite imagery products. We discuss in the next sections our methodology employed to empirically combine the climate, vegetation, and crop data to derive risk based crop distributions including ENSO 5 effects.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%