File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Sensitivity Analysis of Leakage Correction of GRACE Data in Southwest China Using A-Priori Model Simulations: Inter-Comparison of Spherical Harmonics, Mass Concentration and In Situ Observations

TitleSensitivity Analysis of Leakage Correction of GRACE Data in Southwest China Using A-Priori Model Simulations: Inter-Comparison of Spherical Harmonics, Mass Concentration and In Situ Observations
Authors
KeywordsGRACE
Leakage correction
Forward modeling
A priori information
Spherical harmonics
Mascon
Southwest China
Issue Date2019
PublisherMolecular Diversity Preservation International. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.mdpi.net/sensors
Citation
Sensors, 2019, v. 19 n. 14, article no. 3149 How to Cite?
AbstractThe Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) level-2 spherical harmonic (SH) solutions are noisy and thus require filtering. Filtering reduces noise but affects signal quality via signal leakage. Generally, a leakage correction is required for GRACE applications to remove leakage signal and recover the true signal. Forward modelling based on some a priori information is a widely used approach for leakage correction of GRACE data. The a priori information generally relies on global hydrological model simulations. There are many global hydrological models and therefore it is of interest to explore how different global hydrology model simulations influence leakage correction results. This study investigated the sensitivity of three leakage correction methods (additive method, scaling factor method and multiplicative method) to five global hydrology model simulations (four models from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) and the WaterGAP Global Hydrology Model (WGHM)). The sensitivity analysis was performed with observational data in Southwest China and one sub-region, Guangxi. Results show that although large differences were identified among the five global model simulations, the additive and scaling factor methods are less affected by the choice of a priori model in comparison to the multiplicative approach. For the additive and scaling factor methods, WGHM outperforms the other four GLDAS models in leakage correction of GRACE data. GRACE data corrected with the multiplicative method shows the highest amount of error, indicating this method is not applicable for leakage correction in the study area. This study also assessed the level-3 mascon (mass concentration) solutions of GRACE data. The mascon-based results are nearly as good as the leakage corrected results based on SH solutions.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/275715
ISSN
2018 Impact Factor: 3.031
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.546
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Z-
dc.contributor.authorJiao, JJ-
dc.contributor.authorLuo, X-
dc.contributor.authorPan, Y-
dc.contributor.authorZhang, C-
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-10T02:48:13Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-10T02:48:13Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationSensors, 2019, v. 19 n. 14, article no. 3149-
dc.identifier.issn1424-8220-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/275715-
dc.description.abstractThe Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) level-2 spherical harmonic (SH) solutions are noisy and thus require filtering. Filtering reduces noise but affects signal quality via signal leakage. Generally, a leakage correction is required for GRACE applications to remove leakage signal and recover the true signal. Forward modelling based on some a priori information is a widely used approach for leakage correction of GRACE data. The a priori information generally relies on global hydrological model simulations. There are many global hydrological models and therefore it is of interest to explore how different global hydrology model simulations influence leakage correction results. This study investigated the sensitivity of three leakage correction methods (additive method, scaling factor method and multiplicative method) to five global hydrology model simulations (four models from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) and the WaterGAP Global Hydrology Model (WGHM)). The sensitivity analysis was performed with observational data in Southwest China and one sub-region, Guangxi. Results show that although large differences were identified among the five global model simulations, the additive and scaling factor methods are less affected by the choice of a priori model in comparison to the multiplicative approach. For the additive and scaling factor methods, WGHM outperforms the other four GLDAS models in leakage correction of GRACE data. GRACE data corrected with the multiplicative method shows the highest amount of error, indicating this method is not applicable for leakage correction in the study area. This study also assessed the level-3 mascon (mass concentration) solutions of GRACE data. The mascon-based results are nearly as good as the leakage corrected results based on SH solutions.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherMolecular Diversity Preservation International. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.mdpi.net/sensors-
dc.relation.ispartofSensors-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectGRACE-
dc.subjectLeakage correction-
dc.subjectForward modeling-
dc.subjectA priori information-
dc.subjectSpherical harmonics-
dc.subjectMascon-
dc.subjectSouthwest China-
dc.titleSensitivity Analysis of Leakage Correction of GRACE Data in Southwest China Using A-Priori Model Simulations: Inter-Comparison of Spherical Harmonics, Mass Concentration and In Situ Observations-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailJiao, JJ: jjiao@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLuo, X: xinluo@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityJiao, JJ=rp00712-
dc.identifier.authorityLuo, X=rp02606-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/s19143149-
dc.identifier.pmid31319596-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC6679240-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85070072989-
dc.identifier.hkuros302941-
dc.identifier.volume19-
dc.identifier.issue14-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 3149-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 3149-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000479160300116-
dc.publisher.placeSwitzerland-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats