| Literature DB >> 31554328 |
Wanqiu Li1, Wei Wang2, Chuanyin Zhang1, Hanjiang Wen1, Yulong Zhong3, Yu Zhu4, Zhen Li5.
Abstract
The terrestrial water storage anomaly (TWSA) gap between the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its follow-on mission (GRACE-FO) is now a significant issue for scientific research in high-resolution time-variable gravity fields. This paper proposes the use of singular spectrum analysis (SSA) to predict the TWSA derived from GRACE. We designed a case study in six regions in China (North China Plain (NCP), Southwest China (SWC), Three-River Headwaters Region (TRHR), Tianshan Mountains Region (TSMR), Heihe River Basin (HRB), and Lishui and Wenzhou area (LSWZ)) using GRACE RL06 data from January 2003 to August 2016 for inversion, which were compared with Center for Space Research (CSR), Helmholtz-Centre Potsdam-German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)'s Mascon (Mass Concentration) RL05, and JPL's Mascon RL06. We evaluated the accuracy of SSA prediction on different temporal scales based on the correlation coefficient (R), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), and root mean square error (RMSE), which were compared with that of an auto-regressive and moving average (ARMA) model. The TWSA from September 2016 to May 2019 were predicted using SSA, which was verified using Mascon RL06, the Global Land Data Assimilation System model, and GRACE-FO results. The results show that: (1) TWSA derived from GRACE agreed well with Mascon in most regions, with the highest consistency with Mascon RL06 and (2) prediction accuracy of GRACE in TRHR and SWC was higher. SSA reconstruction improved R, NSE, and RMSE compared with those of ARMA. The R values for predicting TWS in the six regions using the SSA method were 0.34-0.98, which was better than those for ARMA (0.26-0.97), and the RMSE values were 0.03-5.55 cm, which were better than the 2.29-5.11 cm RMSE for ARMA as a whole. (3) The SSA method produced better predictions for obvious periodic and trending characteristics in the TWSA in most regions, whereas the detailed signal could not be effectively predicted. (4) The predicted TWSA from September 2016 to May 2019 were basically consistent with Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) results, and the predicted TWSA during June 2018 to May 2019 agreed well with GRACE-FO results. The research method in this paper provides a reference for bridging the gap in the TWSA between GRACE and GRACE-FO.Entities:
Keywords: GRACE; SSA; TWSA; data gap; prediction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31554328 PMCID: PMC6806599 DOI: 10.3390/s19194144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overview map of the study area in China.
Filtering scale factor calculated using the single-scale factor method in the six study regions in China.
| Region Name | NCP | SWC | TRHR | TSMR | HRB | LSWZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale factor | 1.28 | 1.16 | 1.06 | 0.97 | 0.76 | 1.22 |
Figure 2The terrestrial water storage anomaly (TWSA) derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) in typical regions in China compared with Mascon.
Accuracy indicators of regional TWSA compared to Mascon results. NSE: Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency; R: correlation coefficient.
| JPL RL05 | CSR RL05 | GFZ RL05 | JPL RL06 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCP | 0.42/0.01 | 0.48/0.08 | 0.52/0.11 | 0.58/0.18 |
| SWC | 0.95/0.69 | 0.95/0.76 | 0.94/0.74 | 0.95/0.90 |
| TRHR | 0.97/0.92 | 0.98/0.96 | 0.97/0.94 | 0.97/0.95 |
| TSMR | −0.39/−0.15 | −0.51/−0.29 | −0.49/−0.27 | 0.88/0.58 |
| HRB | 0.40/0.08 | 0.72/0.25 | 0.71/0.41 | 0.92/0.74 |
| LSWZ | 0.87/0.66 | 0.90/0.72 | 0.88/0.67 | 0.93/0.87 |
Figure 3W-correlation analysis of TWSA in Southwest China.
Figure 4Fourier transform (FFT) period detection results of TWSA in Southwest China.
Figure 5Singular spectrum analysis (SSA) reconstruction and the prediction time series from SSA and auto-regressive and moving average model (ARMA).
Accuracy evaluation of regional TWSA prediction from January 2013 to August 2016.
| Area | Method | Short-Term | Mid-Short Term | Medium-Term | Long-Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCP | SSA | 0.51/0.26/2.37 | 0.45/0.20/2.38 | 0.36/0.08/2.34 | 0.34/2.27/0.03 |
| ARMA | 0.36/0.12/2.58 | 0.30/0.07/2.56 | 0.27/0.03/2.40 | 0.26/0.02/2.29 | |
| LSWZ | SSA | 0.87/0.61/4.27 | 0.85/0.59/3.89 | 0.70/0.44/4.41 | 0.58/0.31/5.55 |
| ARMA | 0.73/0.54/4.63 | 0.76/0.57/3.98 | 0.63/0.39/4.61 | 0.65/0.42/5.11 | |
| HRB | SSA | 0.67/0.35/2.16 | 0.65/0.32/2.26 | 0.61/0.24/2.38 | 0.56/0.09/2.54 |
| ARMA | 0.59/0.32/1.39 | 0.53/0.23/1.51 | 0.43/0.05/1.66 | 0.28/‒0.21/1.812 | |
| SWC | SSA | 0.98/0.95/1.83 | 0.96/0.92/2.22 | 0.96/0.91/2.29 | 0.96/0.90/2.27 |
| ARMA | 0.97/0.94/2.02 | 0.95/0.90/2.27 | 0.94/0.88/2.40 | 0.93/0.86/2.57 | |
| TRHR | SSA | 0.97/0.95/1.73 | 0.96/0.92/2.10 | 0.95/0.91/2.30 | 0.95/0.90/2.37 |
| ARMA | 0.94/0.89/2.55 | 0.91/0.84/3.08 | 0.90/0.81/3.33 | 0.91/0.82/3.14 | |
| TSMR | SSA | 0.94/0.88/1.07 | 0.91/0.81/1.40 | 0.88/0.77/1.48 | 0.78/0.60/2.21 |
| ARMA | 0.93/0.68/1.72 | 0.89/0.54/2.18 | 0.82/0.49/2.18 | 0.78/0.40/2.70 |
Figure 6Test results of the ARMA model established in this study.
Figure 7Time series of GRACE inversion results and SSA prediction results.
Figure 8Comparison of GRACE TWS predicted by SSA with Mascon and GLDAS results. The red curve represents the prediction time series, the black curve represents the Mascon time series, and the blue curve represents the GLDAS time series.
Figure 9Comparison of predicted GRACE TWS changes with GRACE-FO results. The blue scatters represent the GRACE-FO results and the red curve expresses the change of TWS predicted within the 10 months.