4.7 Article

Simultaneously assimilating multivariate data sets into the two-source evapotranspiration model by Bayesian approach: application to spring maize in an arid region of northwestern China

期刊

GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 1467-1482

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-7-1467-2014

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370467]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences Action Plan for West Development Program Project [KZCX2-XB3-15]
  3. New Century Excellent Talents in University of the Chinese Ministry of Education [NCET-11-0219]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on direct measurements of half-hourly canopy evapotranspiration (ET; Wm(-2)) using the eddy covariance (EC) system and daily soil evaporation (E; mmday(-1)) using microlysimeters over a crop ecosystem in arid northwestern China from 27 May to 14 September in 2013, a Bayesian method was used to simultaneously parameterize the soil surface and canopy resistances in the Shuttleworth-Wallace (S-W) model. Four of the six parameters showed relatively larger uncertainty reductions (>50 %), and their posterior distributions became approximately symmetric with distinctive modes. There was a moderately good agreement between measured and simulated values of half-hourly ET and daily E with a linear regression being y = 0.84x + 0.18(R-2 = 0.83) and y = 1.01x + 0.01(R-2 = 0.82), respectively. The causes of underestimations of ET by the S-W model was possibly attributed to the microscale advection, which can contribute an added energy in the form of downward sensible heat fluxes to the ET process. Therefore, the advection process should be taken into account in simulating ET in heterogeneous land surfaces. Also, underestimations were observed on or shortly after rainy days, which may be due to direct evaporation of liquid water intercepted in the canopy. Thus, the canopy interception model should be coupled to the S-W model in the long-term ET simulation.

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