• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Research
    • Articles
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Research
    • Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of KAUSTCommunitiesIssue DateSubmit DateThis CollectionIssue DateSubmit Date

    My Account

    Login

    Quick Links

    Open Access PolicyORCID LibguideTheses and Dissertations LibguideSubmit an Item

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Multi-site evaluation of terrestrial evaporation models using FLUXNET data

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Type
    Article
    Authors
    Ershadi, Ali cc
    McCabe, Matthew cc
    Evans, Jason P.
    Chaney, Nathaniel W.
    Wood, Eric F. cc
    KAUST Department
    Water Desalination and Reuse Research Center (WDRC)
    Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering (BESE) Division
    Environmental Science and Engineering Program
    Earth System Observation and Modelling
    Date
    2014-04
    Permanent link to this record
    http://hdl.handle.net/10754/563464
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    We evaluated the performance of four commonly applied land surface evaporation models using a high-quality dataset of selected FLUXNET towers. The models that were examined include an energy balance approach (Surface Energy Balance System; SEBS), a combination-type technique (single-source Penman-Monteith; PM), a complementary method (advection-aridity; AA) and a radiation based approach (modified Priestley-Taylor; PT-JPL). Twenty FLUXNET towers were selected based upon satisfying stringent forcing data requirements and representing a wide range of biomes. These towers encompassed a number of grassland, cropland, shrubland, evergreen needleleaf forest and deciduous broadleaf forest sites. Based on the mean value of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and the root mean squared difference (RMSD), the order of overall performance of the models from best to worst were: ensemble mean of models (0.61, 64), PT-JPL (0.59, 66), SEBS (0.42, 84), PM (0.26, 105) and AA (0.18, 105) [statistics stated as (NSE, RMSD in Wm-2)]. Although PT-JPL uses a relatively simple and largely empirical formulation of the evaporative process, the technique showed improved performance compared to PM, possibly due to its partitioning of total evaporation (canopy transpiration, soil evaporation, wet canopy evaporation) and lower uncertainties in the required forcing data. The SEBS model showed low performance over tall and heterogeneous canopies, which was likely a consequence of the effects of the roughness sub-layer parameterization employed in this scheme. However, SEBS performed well overall. Relative to PT-JPL and SEBS, the PM and AA showed low performance over the majority of sites, due to their sensitivity to the parameterization of resistances. Importantly, it should be noted that no single model was consistently best across all biomes. Indeed, this outcome highlights the need for further evaluation of each model's structure and parameterizations to identify sensitivities and their appropriate application to different surface types and conditions. It is expected that the results of this study can be used to inform decisions regarding model choice for water resources and agricultural management, as well as providing insight into model selection for global flux monitoring efforts. © 2013 Elsevier B.V.
    Citation
    Ershadi, A., McCabe, M. F., Evans, J. P., Chaney, N. W., & Wood, E. F. (2014). Multi-site evaluation of terrestrial evaporation models using FLUXNET data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 187, 46–61. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.11.008
    Sponsors
    Funding for this research was provided via an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage (LP0989441) and Discovery (DP120104718) project, together with a top-up scholarship to support Ali Ershadi from the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT) in Australia. We thank the FLUXNET site investigators for allowing us to use their meteorological data. This work used eddy covariance data acquired by the FLUXNET community and in particular by the Ameri-Flux (U.S. Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Carbon Program: DE-FG02-04ER63917 and DE-FG02-04ER63911) and OzFlux. We acknowledge the financial support to the eddy covariance data harmonization provided by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO,iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Universite Laval and Environment Canada and US Department of Energy and the database development and technical support from Berkeley Water Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Microsoft Research eScience, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of California - Berkeley, University of Virginia. Data supplied by T. Kolb, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, for the US-Fuf site was supported by grants from the North American Carbon Program/USDA NRI (2004-35111-15057; 2008-35101-19076), Science Foundation Arizona (CAA 0-203-08) and the Arizona Water Institute. Matlab scripts for automatic downloading of MOD13Q1 data were provided by Dr Tristan Quaife, University College London via the web portal at http://daac.ornl.gov/MODIS/MODIS-menu/modis_webservice.html. We acknowledge the contributions provided via the LandFlux-EVAL initiative and the WACMOS ET project.
    Publisher
    Elsevier BV
    Journal
    Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
    DOI
    10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.11.008
    ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
    10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.11.008
    Scopus Count
    Collections
    Articles; Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering (BESE) Division; Environmental Science and Engineering Program; Water Desalination and Reuse Research Center (WDRC)

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2023  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us | KAUST University Library
    Open Repository is a service hosted by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items. For anonymous users the allowed maximum amount is 50 search results.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.