4.6 Article

Seasonal evapotranspiration changes (1983-2006) of four large basins on the Tibetan Plateau

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
Volume 119, Issue 23, Pages 13079-13095

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022380

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2013CBA018]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB03030302]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41322001, 41190083, 41405076]
  4. Hundred Talents Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  5. NASA MEaSUREs Program
  6. Swedish program Modelling the Regional and Global Earth system
  7. Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lack of reliable historical basin-scale evapotranspiration (ET) estimates is a bottleneck for water balance analyses and model evaluation on the Tibetan Plateau (TP). This study looks at four large basins on the TP to develop a general approach suitable for large river basins to estimate historical monthly ET. Five existing global ET products are evaluated against monthly ET estimated by the water balance method as a residual from precipitation (P), terrestrial water storage change (Delta S), and discharge (R). The five ET products exhibit similar seasonal variability, despite of the different amounts among them. A bias correction method, based on the probability distribution mapping between the reference ET and the five products during 2003-2012, effectively removes nearly all biases and significantly increases the reliability of the products. Then, the surface water balance changes for the four basins are analyzed based on the corrected ET products as well as observed P and R during 1983-2006. A trend analysis shows an upward trend for ET in the four basins for all seasons during the past three decades, along with the regional warming, as well as a dominating increasing trend in P and negative trend in R.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available