2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111413
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Status of accuracy in remotely sensed and in-situ agricultural water productivity estimates: A review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
38
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 174 publications
2
38
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The ETIa‐WPR results are comparable the improved MODIS global terrestrial ETa algorithm, MAPE of 24.6% as compared to EC measurement, when driven by the tower meteorological data (Mu et al, 2011). The ETIa‐WPR error estimates, on average, are also close the average errors in EC measurements as EC measurements typically have errors of 20–30% (Allen et al, 2011; Blatchford, Mannaerts, Zeng, Nouri, & Karimi, 2019), however, it appears that the ETIa‐WPR is regularly overestimating ETIa, which is evident at local to basin level. Figure 12 shows the bias and number of observations between ETIa‐WPR and ETa‐EC for all EC observations disaggregated based on 0.5 mm/day ETa‐EC increments.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…The ETIa‐WPR results are comparable the improved MODIS global terrestrial ETa algorithm, MAPE of 24.6% as compared to EC measurement, when driven by the tower meteorological data (Mu et al, 2011). The ETIa‐WPR error estimates, on average, are also close the average errors in EC measurements as EC measurements typically have errors of 20–30% (Allen et al, 2011; Blatchford, Mannaerts, Zeng, Nouri, & Karimi, 2019), however, it appears that the ETIa‐WPR is regularly overestimating ETIa, which is evident at local to basin level. Figure 12 shows the bias and number of observations between ETIa‐WPR and ETa‐EC for all EC observations disaggregated based on 0.5 mm/day ETa‐EC increments.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…Accurate estimates of evapotranspiration (ET; water evaporated by bare soil and transpired by riparian plants) for riparian, urban green spaces, and cultivated lands are needed for management tasks at all scales. These tasks include scheduling for irrigation; sustaining agricultural production; securing foods and safe water quality and quantity for human uses; managing watersheds; allocating water; determining water rights; forecasting weather; and monitoring, managing, and projecting the long-term effects of land use change and global climate change on water resources [1][2][3][4][5]. Remotely sensed ET maps are useful for negotiating interstate and international water agreements, determining allocations for mining, urban use or natural resources managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, tribes and citizens, and for estimating water use by natural vegetation which creates habitat and requires protections for native and by invasive species [6][7][8][9][10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is an important indicator for evaluating the efficiency of agricultural water use. At present, the research methods for crop water use efficiency are divided into the following categories: site observation [21][22][23][24], statistical analysis [25,26], model simulation [27][28][29][30] and remote sensing inversion [31][32][33][34]. Based on field observation research, the calculation of crop water use efficiency is more accurate, but the number of sample points is limited, and the sample selection process is strongly influenced by human factors.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%