2013
DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2013.837578
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of the MODIS global evapotranspiration algorithm using eddy covariance measurements and hydrological modelling in the Rio Grande basin

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
87
1
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 137 publications
(98 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
8
87
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Such findings are in accordance with those obtained from previous studies over China [85,86], the conterminous United States [87], Brazil [88], South Africa [89], and Spain [90]. MOD16 ETa is not constrained explicitly by soil moisture and assumes that water availability can be captured by atmospheric VPD [91,92].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Such findings are in accordance with those obtained from previous studies over China [85,86], the conterminous United States [87], Brazil [88], South Africa [89], and Spain [90]. MOD16 ETa is not constrained explicitly by soil moisture and assumes that water availability can be captured by atmospheric VPD [91,92].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…This makes Landsat a better option than MODIS when it comes to studying spatially heterogeneous riparian water consumption. The underestimation of MOD16 has been reported for croplands in previous studies [65][66][67]. The MOD16-ET from the CA portion was 34% greater than the AZ areas.…”
Section: Comparisons With Mod16 and Lcrassupporting
confidence: 52%
“…The average ET and EVI values for the wet season were 2.81 ± 0.57 and 0.48 ± 0.05 mm day −1 , and for the dry season 1.70 ± 0.70 and 0.33 ± 0.05 mm day −1 , respectively. The fitted equation considering the periods of calibration, validation and full time series at 16-day averages showed good results in the ET estimates, with a coefficient of determination (R 2 ) greater than 0.70 and standard deviation of differences between observed and estimated ET (SD) and RMSE of less than 0.50 mm day −1 and 21 %, respectively ( Ruhoff et al (2013) with the ET estimated from the product MOD16 . The authors found values of R 2 = 0.61 and RMSE = 0.46 mm day −1 , which were not as good as for the present study results.…”
Section: Modeling Etmentioning
confidence: 91%