4.7 Article

Estimating and Validating Soil Evaporation and Crop Transpiration During the HiWATER-MUSOEXE

期刊

IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 334-338

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2014.2339360

关键词

Evapotranspiration (ET) estimation; soil and vegetation component temperatures; validation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91125002]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The two-source energy balance (TSEB) model was successfully applied to estimate evaporation (E), transpiration (T), and evapotranspiration (ET) for land covered with vegetation, which has significantly important applications for the terrestrial water cycle and water resource management. However, the current composite temperature separation approaches are limited in their effectiveness in arid regions. Moreover, E and T are difficult to measure on the ground. In this letter, the ground-measured soil and canopy component temperatures were used to estimate E, T, and ET, which were better validated with observed ratios of E (E/ET%) and T (T/ET%) using the stable oxygen and hydrogen isotopes, and the ET measurements using an eddy covariance (EC) system. Our results indicated that even under the strongly advective conditions, the TSEB model produced reliable estimates of the E/ET% and T/ET% ratios and of ET. The mean bias and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of E/ET% were 1% and 2%, respectively, and the mean bias and RMSE of T/ET% were -1% and 2%, respectively. In addition, the model exhibited relatively reliable estimates in the latent heat flux, with mean bias and RMSE values of 31 and 61 W center dot m(-2), respectively, compared with the measurements from the EC system. These results demonstrated that a robust soil and vegetation component temperature calculation was crucial for estimating E, T, and ET. Moreover, the separate validation of E/ET% and T/ET% provides a good prospect for TSEB model improvements.

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