2015
DOI: 10.3390/rs70810444
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consistency between In Situ, Model-Derived and High-Resolution-Image-Based Soil Temperature Endmembers: Towards a Robust Data-Based Model for Multi-Resolution Monitoring of Crop Evapotranspiration

Abstract: Due to their image-based nature, "contextual" approaches are very attractive to estimate evapotranspiration (ET) from remotely-sensed land surface temperature (LST) data. Their application is however limited to highly heterogeneous areas where the soil and vegetation temperature endmembers (Tends) can be observed at the thermal sensor resolution. This paper aims to develop a simple theoretical approach to estimate Tends independently from LST images. for the image-based and model-derived Tends, respectively. I… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main sources of uncertainties when using DISPATCH are related to the modeling of SEE using two different information types: (1) the modeling of SEE as a function of LST and visible/near‐infrared reflectances and (2) the modeling of SEE as a function of SM. Further improvements of DISPATCH need revising the modeling of temperature end‐members [ Stefan et al , ], the topographic correction of LST including both elevation and illumination effects [ Malbéteau et al , ], and the modeling of SEE as a function of SM, soil properties, and atmospheric conditions [ Merlin et al , ].…”
Section: Downscaling Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main sources of uncertainties when using DISPATCH are related to the modeling of SEE using two different information types: (1) the modeling of SEE as a function of LST and visible/near‐infrared reflectances and (2) the modeling of SEE as a function of SM. Further improvements of DISPATCH need revising the modeling of temperature end‐members [ Stefan et al , ], the topographic correction of LST including both elevation and illumination effects [ Malbéteau et al , ], and the modeling of SEE as a function of SM, soil properties, and atmospheric conditions [ Merlin et al , ].…”
Section: Downscaling Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another significant advantage of the formulation in SEE is the strong link with remote sensing variables available in the thermal and microwave frequencies. In particular, the SEE‐based representation of evaporation is fully consistent with both the thermal‐derived T normalized by wet/dry T endmembers [e.g., Nishida et al ., ; Stefan et al ., ], and the θ retrieved from microwave data [e.g., Prévot et al ., ; Simmonds and Burke , ; Zribi et al ., ].…”
Section: A Downward Modeling Approach Of Seementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Physically based soil water diffusion models [e.g., Tang and Riley , ] will be very helpful in that direction. given that a significant correlation exists between θ1/2 and sand and clay fractions, one could imagine a remote sensing approach for estimating surface soil texture from multi‐sensor/multi‐spectral remote sensing. In practice, several issues will need to be addressed beforehand such as the estimation of SEE from thermal infrared data [ Chanzy et al ., ; Stefan et al ., ], the downscaling of microwave‐derived θ [e.g., Merlin et al ., ], and the partitioning between soil evaporation and plant transpiration from available remote sensing data [e.g., Merlin et al ., ].…”
Section: Summary and Perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2), a thermal-derived SM index (SEE) can be obtained by normalizing the Landsat LST from the theoretical dry and wet LST values estimated from the LST-NDVI feature space (e.g. Wan et al, 2004) or from an energy balance model (Stefan et al, 2015). Over a relatively flat terrain, in the absence of vegetation cover and under heterogeneous SM conditions (i.e.…”
Section: Validation Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%