2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel method to convert daytime evapotranspiration into daily evapotranspiration based on variable canopy resistance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The maximum of half-hourly G s varied from 4.5 mm s −1 at the initial stage to 36.6 mm s −1 at the mid-season stage, and changed almost synchronously with R n (Fig. 2a), indicating that radiation was the main factor influencing G s in the course of daytime, which is consistent with previous studies (Irmak and Mutiibwa, 2010;Liu et al, 2011;Steduto and Hsiao, 1998). As air temperature (T a ) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) increased in the afternoon (Fig.…”
Section: Prediction Of Evapotranspirationsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The maximum of half-hourly G s varied from 4.5 mm s −1 at the initial stage to 36.6 mm s −1 at the mid-season stage, and changed almost synchronously with R n (Fig. 2a), indicating that radiation was the main factor influencing G s in the course of daytime, which is consistent with previous studies (Irmak and Mutiibwa, 2010;Liu et al, 2011;Steduto and Hsiao, 1998). As air temperature (T a ) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) increased in the afternoon (Fig.…”
Section: Prediction Of Evapotranspirationsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Although Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985) described a well-known model with a separate treatment of soil and vegetation evaporation for sparse canopy, its practical application requires specifying five aerodynamic and surface conductances that are difficult to determine (Kool et al, 2014). In addition, some studies have developed empirical or semiempirical models of G s , such as the K-P model (Katerji and Rana, 2006;Rana et al, 2012), and Todorovic model (Liu et al, 2011;Todorovic, 1999). However, an analytical dynamic form for G s combining the soil evaporation and crop transpiration has not been established yet for canopy from partial to full cover based on a dynamic fraction of canopy cover.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Colaizzi and Liu suggest Equation (1) that a model performs well when the MAE is less than 50% of the measured standard deviation, Equation (2) that there are few outliers when the RMSE is not greater than 50% of the MAE, and Equation (3) that the higher the value of d, the better the model performance [30,31]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The constant reference evaporative fraction (EFr, the ratio of actual to reference grass (alfalfa) ET) method, which was proposed by Trezza [] to use a fixed surface resistance of 50 (30) s/m during the daytime and 200 s/m during the nighttime for reference grass (alfalfa) ET estimates and assumes that EFr is relatively constant during the day, is one of the most widely applied schemes for upscaling instantaneous remote sensing estimates of ET. The effectiveness of the constant EFr method in upscaling instantaneous ET data has been investigated and demonstrated by numerous studies that used primarily local (in situ) metrological observations [ Colaizzi et al ., ; Chávez et al ., ; Allen et al ., ; Liu et al ., ; Tang et al ., ]. Biases may be found when this method is tested by using only remote sensing data [ Cammalleri et al ., ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%