4.7 Article

Parameter Analysis and Estimates for the MODIS Evapotranspiration Algorithm and Multiscale Verification

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 2211-2231

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2018WR023485

关键词

terrestrial evapotranspiration; Sobol' sensitivity analysis; DE-MC optimization; multiscale evaluation

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC0406602]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41871078, 41571016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate estimation of terrestrial evapotranspiration (E) is critical to understand the world's energy and water cycles. MOD16 is the core algorithm of the widely used global E data set (the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer [MODIS] E product). However, it exhibits considerable uncertainties in some regions. Based on the data from 175 flux towers, we identified the key parameters of the MOD16 algorithm using the Sobol' sensitivity analysis method across biomes. The output of the MOD16 algorithm was sensitive to eight parameters. Among them, beta, which is treated as a constant (0.2 kPa) across biomes in the original MOD16 algorithm, was identified as the parameter to which the algorithm was most sensitive. We used the differential-evolution Markov chain method to obtain the proper posterior distributions for each key parameter across a range of biomes. The values of the key parameters for the different biomes were accurately estimated by differential-evolution Markov chain in comparison with data from the flux towers. We then evaluated the performances of the original MOD16 and the optimized MOD16 and compared them at multiple spatial scales (i.e., site, catchment, and global). We obtained relatively consistent and more reliable E simulations using the optimized MOD16 at all three scales. In the future, more attention should be paid to uncertainties in the algorithm's structure and its parameterizations of soil moisture constraint, canopy resistance, and energy partitioning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据