Comparison of three dual-source remote sensing evapotranspiration models during the MUSOEXE-12 campaign: Revisit of model physics-文献浏览-时空三极环境大数据平台

引用方式

Yang, Y., D. Long, H. Guan, W. Liang, C. Simmons, and O. Batelaan. Comparison of three dual-source remote sensing evapotranspiration models during the MUSOEXE-12 campaign: Revisit of model physics, Water Resour. Res., 2015,51, doi:10.1002/2014WR015619.

文献信息
Type Of Reference	JOUR
Title	Comparison of three dual-source remote sensing evapotranspiration models during the MUSOEXE-12 campaign: Revisit of model physics
Authors	Yang, Yuting\| Long, Di\| Guan, Huade\| Liang, Wei\| Simmons, Craig\| Batelaan, Okke\|
Secondary Title	Water Resources Research
Abstract	Various remote sensing-based terrestrial evapotranspiration (ET) models have been developed during the past four decades. These models vary in conceptual and mathematical representations of the physics, consequently leading to different performances. Examination of uncertainties associated with limitations in model physics will be useful for model selection and improvement. Here, three dual-source remote sensing ET models (i.e., the Hybrid dual-source scheme and Trapezoid framework-based ET Model (HTEM), the Two-Source Energy Balance (TSEB) model, and the MOD16 ET algorithm) using ASTER images were compared during the MUSOEXE-12 campaign in the Heihe River Basin in Northwest China, aiming to better understand the differences in model physics that potentially lead to differences in model performance. Model results were first compared against observations from a dense network of eddy covariance towers and isotope-based evaporation (E) and transpiration (T) partitioning. Results show that HTEM outperformed the other two models in simulating ET and its partitioning, whereas MOD16 performed worst (i.e., ET root-mean-square errors are 42.3 W/m2 (HTEM), 49.8 W/m2 (TSEB), and 95.3 W/m2 (MOD16)). On to model limitations, HTEM tends to underestimate ET under high advection due mostly to the underestimation of temperatures for the wet edge in its trapezoidal space. For TSEB, large uncertainties occur in determining the initial Priestley-Taylor coefficient and the iteration procedure for ET partitioning, leading to overestimation/underestimation of T/E in most cases, particularly over sparse vegetation. Primary use of meteorological data for MOD16 does not effectively capture the soil moisture restriction on ET, and therefore results in unreasonable spatial ET patterns.
Date	2015//01/
Year	2015
DOI	10.1002/2014WR015619
Database Provider	Wiley Online Library
volume	51
Issue Number	5
Start Page	3145
Alternate Title1	Water Resour. Res.
Language	en
Issn	1944-7973
Url	http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014WR015619/abstract
Access Date	2015/10/02/16:00:23
Keywords	1814 Energy budgets\| 1818 Evapotranspiration\| 1855 Remote sensing\| ASTER images\| comparison\| dual-source models\| Evapotranspiration\| MUSOEXE-12\| Remote sensing\|
file_attachments2	http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014WR015619/abstract
PDF	此文献未收录 PDF(如何提交?)

Comparison of three dual-source remote sensing evapotranspiration models during the MUSOEXE-12 campaign: Revisit of model physics

作者：

引用方式

相关数据：