Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = PT-SinRH model

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
19 pages, 10880 KiB  
Article
Satellite Evidence for Increasing in Terrestrial Evapotranspiration over the Contiguous United States from 2001 to 2022
by Lu Liu, Yunjun Yao, Yufu Li, Zijing Xie, Jing Ning, Ruiyang Yu, Jiahui Fan, Yixi Kan, Luna Zhang and Jia Xu
Forests 2024, 15(8), 1472; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15081472 - 21 Aug 2024
Viewed by 860
Abstract
Evapotranspiration (ET) is a key process in the eco-hydrological cycle of a basin and a reliable indicator of climate change. However, the spatiotemporal alterations of ET in the contiguous United States (CONUS) over the recent two decades remain largely uncertain. In this study, [...] Read more.
Evapotranspiration (ET) is a key process in the eco-hydrological cycle of a basin and a reliable indicator of climate change. However, the spatiotemporal alterations of ET in the contiguous United States (CONUS) over the recent two decades remain largely uncertain. In this study, we used the recently proposed Priestley–Taylor (PT)-SinRH model to estimate the ET of CONUS during 2001–2022 based on satellite and reanalysis data. The results showed that the PT-SinRH model yielded superior performance at eddy covariance (EC) sites, and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) ranged from 6.0 to 33.5 W/m2, the Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) ranged from 0.22 to 0.66. The annual mean value of ET in CONUS from 2001 to 2022, estimated by the PT-SinRH model, was 42.54 W/m2, and the spatial pattern of seasonal and annual ET variations increased from west to east. From 2001 to 2022, seasonal and annual ET of CONUS showed linear trends, with an average increase of 0.76 W/m2/da (p < 0.05). The ET in the east of CONUS exhibited a rate of increase at 1.45 W/m2/da, and the ET in the west of CONUS exhibited a rate of increase at 0.42 W/m2/da (p < 0.05). Importantly, our analysis of ET trends highlights that the change of precipitation (P) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) exerts a significant impact on the change of ET over CONUS. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Inventory, Modeling and Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Scatterplots of predicted ET and daily observed ET based on satellite and reanalysis data input at various land cover types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Annual spatial patterns of ET over the CONUS during 2001–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Seasonal spatial patterns of ET over the CONUS from 2001 to 2022. MAM (spring): March, April, and May; JJA (summer): June, July, and August; SON (Fall): September, October, and November; DJF (Winter): December, January, and February.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Interannual variability of ET from 2001 to 2022 over the (<b>a</b>) CONUS, (<b>b</b>) west of CONUS, and (<b>c</b>) east of CONUS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Interannual seasonal variability of ET from 2001 to 2022 over the CONUS [(<b>a</b>) MAM, (<b>b</b>) JJA, (<b>c</b>) SON, and (<b>d</b>) DJF], west of CONUS [(<b>a1</b>) MAM, (<b>b1</b>) JJA, (<b>c1</b>) SON, and (<b>d1</b>) DJF], and east of CONUS [(<b>a2</b>) MAM, (<b>b2</b>) JJA, (<b>c2</b>) SON, and (<b>d2</b>) DJF].</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Annual spatiotemporal variations of ET over the CONUS from 2001 to 2022 (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05). Black dots mean the regions have been checked by significant tests at a 95% confidence level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Seasonal spatiotemporal variations of ET over the CONUS from 2001 to 2022. Black dots mean the regions have been checked by significant tests at a 95% confidence level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Annual spatial patterns of NDVI, precipitation (P), and temperature (Ta) over the CONUS from 2001 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Annual temporal variations of precipitation (P), temperature (Ta), and NDVI over the CONUS [(<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>)], west of CONUS [(<b>a1</b>–<b>c1</b>)], and east of CONUS [(<b>a2</b>–<b>c2</b>)] from 2001 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Annual spatiotemporal variations of NDVI, precipitation (P), and temperature (T<sub>a</sub>) over the CONUS from 2001 to 2022. Black dots mean the regions have been checked by significant tests at a 95% confidence level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Evapotranspiration (ET), precipitation (P), and temperature (Ta) anomalies over the CONUS on 2012.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 6746 KiB  
Article
Satellite-Based PT-SinRH Evapotranspiration Model: Development and Validation from AmeriFlux Data
by Zijing Xie, Yunjun Yao, Yufu Li, Lu Liu, Jing Ning, Ruiyang Yu, Jiahui Fan, Yixi Kan, Luna Zhang, Jia Xu, Kun Jia and Xiaotong Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(15), 2783; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16152783 - 30 Jul 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 853
Abstract
The Priestley–Taylor model of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PT-JPL) evapotranspiration (ET) model is relatively simple and has been widely used based on meteorological and satellite data. However, soil moisture (SM) constraints include a vapor pressure deficit (VPD) that causes large uncertainty. In this [...] Read more.
The Priestley–Taylor model of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PT-JPL) evapotranspiration (ET) model is relatively simple and has been widely used based on meteorological and satellite data. However, soil moisture (SM) constraints include a vapor pressure deficit (VPD) that causes large uncertainty. In this study, we proposed a PT-SinRH model by introducing a sine function of air relative humidity (RH) to replace RHVPD to characterize SM constraints, which can improve the accuracy of ET estimations. The PT-SinRH model is validated by eddy covariance (EC) data from 2000–2020. These data were collected by AmeriFlux at 28 sites on the conterminous United States (CONUS), and the land cover types of the sites vary from croplands to wetlands, grasslands, shrub lands and forests. The validation results from daily scale-based on-site and satellite data inputs showed that the PT-SinRH model estimates fit the observations with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.55, root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 17.5 W/m2, bias of −1.2 W/m2 and Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) of 0.70. Additionally, the PT-SinRH model based on reanalysis and satellite data inputs has an R2 of 0.49, an RMSE of 20.3 W/m2, a bias of −8.6 W/m2 and a KGE of 0.55. The PT-SinRH model showed better accuracy when using the site-measured meteorological data than when using reanalysis meteorological data as inputs. Additionally, compared with the PT-JPL model, the results demonstrate that our approach, i.e., PT-SinRH, improved ET estimates, increasing the R2 and KGE by 0.02 and decreasing the RMSE by about 0.6 W/m2. This simple but accurate method permits us to investigate the decadal variation in regional ET over the land. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quantitative Remote Sensing of Vegetation and Its Applications)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Locations of the 28 sites used in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The estimated ET (vertical axis) versus the ground-measured ET (horizontal axis) based on site-measured and satellite data inputs for all ET, seasonal ET, among-site ET variability and annual ET anomalies.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of the daily ET observations for all 28 sites and the corresponding ET estimations from PT-SinRH based on site-measured and satellite data inputs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The estimated ET (vertical axis) versus the ground-measured ET (horizontal axis) based on reanalysis and satellite data inputs for all ET, seasonal ET, among-site ET variability and annual ET anomalies.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the daily ET observations for all 28 sites and the corresponding ET estimations from PT-SinRH based on reanalysis and satellite data inputs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of the daily ET observations for all 28 sites and the corresponding ET estimations from PT-sinRH (<b>left</b>) and PT-JPL (<b>right</b>) based on site-measured and satellite data inputs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Time series example of 8-day ET as ground-measured and estimated using PT-sinRH and PT-JPL models based on site-measured and satellite data inputs at seven validation sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison of the daily ET observations for all 28 sites and the corresponding ET estimations from PT-sinRH (<b>left</b>) and PT-JPL (<b>right</b>) based on reanalysis and satellite data inputs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Eight-day ET time series example as ground-observed and estimated using PT-SinRH and PT-JPL models based on reanalysis and satellite data inputs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Maps of the annual CONUS ET averaged for 2003–2005 using the PT-SinRH model.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop