4.7 Article

Estimation of evaporation over the upper Blue Nile basin by combining observations from satellites and river flow gauges

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 644-659

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015WR017251

关键词

evapotranspiration; upper Blue Nile; hydrological data assimilation; hydrology

资金

  1. Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (Masdar Institute), Abu Dhabi, UAE [02/MI/MIT/CP/11/07633/GEN/G/00]
  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA [02/MI/MIT/CP/11/07633/GEN/G/00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reliable estimates of regional evapotranspiration are necessary to improve water resources management and planning. However, direct measurements of evaporation are expensive and difficult to obtain. Some of the difficulties are illustrated in a comparison of several satellite-based estimates of evapotranspiration for the Upper Blue Nile (UBN) basin in Ethiopia. These estimates disagree both temporally and spatially. All the available data products underestimate evapotranspiration leading to basin-scale mass balance errors on the order of 35 percent of the mean annual rainfall. This paper presents a methodology that combines satellite observations of rainfall, terrestrial water storage as well as river-flow gauge measurements to estimate actual evapotranspiration over the UBN basin. The estimates derived from these inputs are constrained using a one-layer soil water balance and routing model. Our results describe physically consistent long-term spatial and temporal distributions of key hydrologic variables, including rainfall, evapotranspiration, and river-flow. We estimate an annual evapotranspiration over the UBN basin of about 2.55 mm per day. Spatial and temporal evapotranspiration trends are revealed by dividing the basin into smaller subbasins. The methodology described here is applicable to other basins with limited observational coverage that are facing similar future challenges of water scarcity and climate change.

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