Author:
Wei Guoxiao,Zhang Xiaoying,Ye Ming,Yue Ning,Kan Fei
Abstract
Abstract. Evapotranspiration (ET) is a major component of the land surface process
involved in energy fluxes and energy balance, especially in the hydrological
cycle of agricultural ecosystems. While many models have been developed as
powerful tools to simulate ET, there is no agreement on which model best
describes the loss of water to the atmosphere. This study focuses on two
aspects, evaluating the performance of four widely used ET models and
identifying parameters, and the physical mechanisms that have
significant impacts on the model performance. The four tested models are
the Shuttleworth–Wallace (SW) model, Penman–Monteith (PM) model,
Priestley–Taylor and Flint–Childs (PT–FC) model, and advection–aridity (AA)
model. By incorporating the mathematically rigorous thermodynamic
integration algorithm, the Bayesian model evidence (BME) approach is adopted
to select the optimal model with half-hourly ET observations obtained at a
spring maize field in an arid region. Our results reveal that the SW model has the
best performance, and the extinction coefficient is not merely partitioning
the total available energy into the canopy and surface but also including
the energy imbalance correction. The extinction coefficient is well
constrained in the SW model and poorly constrained in the PM model but not
considered in PT–FC and AA models. This is one of the main reasons that the
SW model outperforms the other models. Meanwhile, the good fitting of SW
model to observations can counterbalance its higher complexity. In addition,
the detailed analysis of the discrepancies between observations and model
simulations during the crop growth season indicate that explicit treatment
of energy imbalance and energy interaction will be the primary way of
further improving ET model performance.
Funder
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference82 articles.
1. Allen, R. G., Perista, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop
Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO
Irrigation and Drainage papers 56, FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1998.
2. Alves, I. and Pereira, L. S.: Modeling surface resistance from climatic
variables?, Agr. Water Manage., 42, 371–385, 2000.
3. Aubinet, M., Grelle, A., Ibrom, A., Rannik, Ü., Moncrieff, J., and
Foken, T.: Estimates of the annual net carbon and water exchange of forests:
the euroflux methodology, Adv. Ecol. Res., 30, 113–175, 2000.
4. Baldocchi, D. D.: Assessing the eddy covariance technique for evaluating
carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: past, present and future, Global
Change. Biol., 9, 479–492, 2003.
5. Bardossy, A. and Das, T.: Influence of rainfall observation network on model calibration and application, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 77–89,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-77-2008, 2008.