4.5 Review

A review of remote sensing based actual evapotranspiration estimation

Journal

WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-WATER
Volume 3, Issue 6, Pages 834-853

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1168

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2015B28514]
  2. Thousand Young Talents Program
  3. NASA Terrestrial Hydrology project [NNX15AB59G]
  4. Office Of The Director
  5. Office of Integrative Activities [1443108] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evapotranspiration is a major component of the global water cycle and provides a critical nexus between terrestrial water, carbon and surface energy exchanges. Evapotranspiration is inherently difficult to measure and predict especially at large spatial scales. Remote sensing provides a cost-effective method to estimate evapotranspiration at regional to global scales. In the past three decades a large number of studies on remote sensing based evapotranspiration estimation have emerged. This review summarizes the basic theories underpinning current remote sensing based evapotranspiration estimation methods. It also lays out the development history of these methods and compares their advantages and limitations. Several key directions for further study are identified and discussed, including identification of uncertainty sources in remote sensing evapotranspiration models, merging of different remote sensing methods, application of data assimilation and fusion techniques in producing robust evapotranspiration estimates, and utilization of multi-source remote sensing data and latest sensor technologies. Further advances in the remote sensing of evapotranspiration will enhance capabilities for monitoring of the global water and energy cycles, including water availability and ecosystem responses and feedbacks to climate change and human impacts. (C) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available