4.7 Article

Surface energy fluxes over El Reno, Oklahoma, using high-resolution remotely sensed data

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2002WR001734

关键词

surface energy flux; thermal infrared; TIMS; El Reno; Oklahoma; SGP97; two source energy balance model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate estimation of spatial distributions of evapotranspiration (ET) is a goal sought by hydrologists, agronomists, and meteorologists but is difficult to achieve. The usual approaches to estimating ET employ remote sensing observations and a surface energy flux model. However, resolution of remote sensing data, needed to observe patterns of biophysical variables, is commonly too coarse (>1 km) to distinguish between land cover types that constrain ET. Accuracy of ET estimates can be improved by using higher-resolution (<100 m) remote sensing data since they can distinguish clusters of vegetation from bare soil fields and water bodies. A demonstration of this potential is shown using aircraft-based remote sensing observations over a study site at El Reno, Oklahoma. Five midday surveys, conducted from 29 June to 2 July 1997, as part of the Southern Great Plains 1997 Experiment (SGP97), collected 12 m resolution images in the visible, near infrared, and thermal infrared. Surface temperature and vegetation density maps, created from these surveys, were combined with surface micrometeorological observations and with a two source energy balance model. Results from El Reno show that flux estimates with respect to ground-based eddy covariance observations can be accurate to within 40-80 W m(-2). This means that the high spatial resolution observations can potentially produce ET estimates similar in quality to ground-based point measurements. Additional work, needed to show how high-resolution remote sensing estimates can be related to coarser resolution observations, is underway using the satellite sensors ASTER (15-90 m resolution) and MODIS (250 m to 1 km resolution).

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