File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Comparison of et models over different land cover

TitleComparison of et models over different land cover
Authors
Issue Date2014
Citation
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2014, v. 17, n. 1, article no. 012128 How to Cite?
AbstractThe objective of this work is to compare various ET models based on a standard dataset. We selected 9 ET models for comparison, including three surface energy balance residual models (SEBS, TSEB-P and TSEB-S), four Penman-Monteith models (PM-Mu, PM-Yuan, PM-Sun and PM-SW), one Priestly-Taylor model (PT-Fi) and one semi-empirical statiacital model (ST). ET is evaluated using surface climate data from ground measurements as input. Remote sensing data including Ts, LAI and NDVI products from MODIS are used. Estimated ET is validated against 40 Fluxnet measurement sites across North United states and Europe. The sites land cover types include grassland, cropland, evergreen needle leaf forest, evergreen broadleaf forest, deciduous broadleaf forest, mixed forest, shrub land and savannas. Results show that ST model had a balanced performance with relative good precision over all the land cover types. PM-Sun has high R2 and low RMSE and bias over all land cover types. However, it overestimated high value and underestimated low value, mainly due to the overestimation of soil evaporation and underestimation of plant transpiration. The energy budget series models including SEBS, TSEB-P and TSEB-S have a bad performs on the forest land cover. PM-Mu and PM-Yuan underestimated ET obviously, resulting from the underestimation of soil evaporation.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/321594
ISSN
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.199
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSun, Liang-
dc.contributor.authorLiang, Shunlin-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Zhongxin-
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-03T02:20:06Z-
dc.date.available2022-11-03T02:20:06Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2014, v. 17, n. 1, article no. 012128-
dc.identifier.issn1755-1307-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/321594-
dc.description.abstractThe objective of this work is to compare various ET models based on a standard dataset. We selected 9 ET models for comparison, including three surface energy balance residual models (SEBS, TSEB-P and TSEB-S), four Penman-Monteith models (PM-Mu, PM-Yuan, PM-Sun and PM-SW), one Priestly-Taylor model (PT-Fi) and one semi-empirical statiacital model (ST). ET is evaluated using surface climate data from ground measurements as input. Remote sensing data including Ts, LAI and NDVI products from MODIS are used. Estimated ET is validated against 40 Fluxnet measurement sites across North United states and Europe. The sites land cover types include grassland, cropland, evergreen needle leaf forest, evergreen broadleaf forest, deciduous broadleaf forest, mixed forest, shrub land and savannas. Results show that ST model had a balanced performance with relative good precision over all the land cover types. PM-Sun has high R2 and low RMSE and bias over all land cover types. However, it overestimated high value and underestimated low value, mainly due to the overestimation of soil evaporation and underestimation of plant transpiration. The energy budget series models including SEBS, TSEB-P and TSEB-S have a bad performs on the forest land cover. PM-Mu and PM-Yuan underestimated ET obviously, resulting from the underestimation of soil evaporation.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science-
dc.titleComparison of et models over different land cover-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1088/1755-1315/17/1/012128-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84902136881-
dc.identifier.volume17-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 012128-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 012128-
dc.identifier.eissn1755-1315-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000341299300128-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats