VALIDATION THE PRODUCT OF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (MOD16) FOR A CULTURE RICE IRRIGATED IN CACHOEIRA DO SUL – RS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20230Keywords:
Evapotranspiration. Rice irrigated. MOD16. Brazil. Flux.Abstract
The process of evapotranspiration (ET) is the second major component of the hydrological cycle, being connected directly with the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Determine the ET for large areas of irrigated rice is a limiting factor due to the high cost of equipment and skilled labor. Using data from remote sensors has been serving as an alternative technique for monitoring ET over large areas. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ET (MOD16) for a rice paddy in the Cachoeira do Sul - Brazil. The data used in this study cover the period from October 2013 to September 2014. The comparison between the ET-MODIS central pixel with the observed ET (estimated by technique Eddy Covariance) showed statistical values of RSME = 15.87, PBIAS -29.2. For the same pixels with vegetation were also extracted from the average values of ET-MODIS flow and compared with the tower, showing RSME = 14.59, PBIAS = -40.3. The biggest difference between the observed data with the MOD16 occurred during the rice cultivation that takes place between the spring/summer, not following the variability of ET.
Downloads
References
Alberto, Ma. C. R., Wassmann, R., Hirano, T. Miyata, A. Hatano, R. Kumar, A., Padre, A., Amante, M. (2011). Comparisons of energy balance and evapotranspiration between flood and aerobic rice fields in the Philippines. Agricultural Water Management, 98, 1417-1430.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., Smith, M. (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Itália.
Cleugh, H. A., Leuning, R., Mu, Q., Running, S. W. (2006) Regional Evaporation Estimates from Flux Tower and MODIS Satellite Data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 106, 285-304.
Mu, Q., Heinsh, F. A., Zhao, M., Running, S. W. (2007) Development of a global evapotranspiration algorithm based on MODIS and global meteorology data. Remote Sensing Environment, 111, 519-53.
Mu, Q., Zhao, M., Running, S. W. (2011). Improvements to a MODIS Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration Algorithm. Remote Sensing of Environment, 115, 1781-1800.
Ramoelo, A., Majozi, N., Mathieu, R., Jovanovic, N., Nickless, A., Dzikiti, S. (2014). Validation of Global Evapotranspiration Product (MOD16) using Flux Tower Data in the African Savanna, South Africa. Remote Sensing, 6, 7406-7423.
Suyker, A. E.; Verma, S.B. (2009). Evapotranspiration of irrigated and rainfed maize-soybean cropping systems. Agricultural Forest Meteorology, 149, 443-452.
Timm, A. U., Roberti, D. R., Streck, N. A., Gonçalves, L. G. G, Acevedo, O. C., Moraes, O. L. L., Moreira, V. S., Degrazia, G. A., Ferlan, M., Toll, D. L. (2014). Energy partitioning and evapotranspiration over a rice paddy in southern Brazil. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 15, 1975-1988.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
