Evaluation of remotely sensed evapotranspiration products MOD16 and GLEAM in eddy covariance flux sites from LBA Project
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X30714Keywords:
LBA, MODIS, GLEAM, ValidationAbstract
This study aims to evaluate the performance of MOD16 and GLEAM evapotranspiration (ET) datasets in nine eddy covariance monitoring sites. Data from both ET products were downloaded and its daily means calculated. Evapotranspiration estimations were then compared to the observed ET in the eddy covariance monitoring sites from the Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in the Amazon (LBA). We performed a statistical analysis using the correlation coefficient (R), the root mean square error (RMSE) and BIAS. Results indicate that, in general, both products can represent the observed ET in the eddy covariance flux towers. MOD16 and GLEAM showed similar values to the calculated statistics when ET estimates were compared to observed ET. Model estimates and eddy covariance flux towers are subject to uncertainties that influence the analysis of remotely-sensed ET products.Downloads
References
AVISSAR R, NOBRE C. A preface to special issue on the large-scale biosphere-atmosphere experiment in Amazonia (LBA). J. Geophys. Res. 2002;107(D20):8034.
CHEN Y, XIA J, LIANG S, FENG J, FISHER JB, LI X. et al. Comparison of satellite-based evapotranspiration models over terrestrial ecosystems in china. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014; 140:279–293.
HU G, JIA L, MENENTI M, Comparison of MOD16 and LSA-SAF MSG evapotranspiration products over Europe for 2011. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015; 156:510–526.
KIM HW, HWANG K, MU Q, LEE SO, CHOI M. Validation of MODIS 16 global terrestrial evapotranspiration products in various climates and land cover types in Asia. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 2012;16(2):229–238.
LIAQAT UW, CHOI M. Accuracy comparison of remotely sensed evapotranspiration products and their associated water stress footprints under different land cover types in Korean peninsula. J. Clean. Prod. 2017; 155:93–104.
MARTENS B, MIRALLES D G, LIEVENS H, VAN DER SCHALIE R, DE JEU R A, FERNANDEZ-PRIETO D. et al. Gleam v3: Satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geoscientific Model Development. 2017;10(5):1903-1925.
MIRALLES D, HOLMES T, DE JEU R A, GASH J, MEESTERS A, DOLMAN A. Global landsurface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2011;15(2): 453-469.
MU, Q.; HEINSCH, F. A.; ZHAO, M.; RUNNING, S. W. Development of a global evapotranspiration algorithm based on modis and global meteorology data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007;111(4):519–536.
MU Q, ZHAO M, RUNNING SW. Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm. Remote Sens. Environ.2011;115(8):1781–1800.
OLIVEIRA G, BRUNSELL NA, MORAES EC, SHIMABUKURO YE, BERTANI G, SANTOS TV. et al. Evaluation of MODIS-based estimates of water-use efficiency in Amazonia. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2017;38(19):5291–5309
.
ROBERTS DA, KELLER M, SOARES JV. Studies of land-cover, land-use, and biophysical properties of vegetation in the large scale biosphere atmosphere experiment in Amazônia. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003;87(4):377–388.
RUHOFF A, PAZ A, ARAGAO L, MU Q, MALHI Y, COLLISCHONN W. et al. Assessment of the MODIS global evapotranspiration algorithm using eddy covariance measurements and hydrological modelling in the Rio Grande basin. Hydrolog. Sci. J. 2013;58(8):1658–1676.
RUHOFF AL. Sensoriamento remoto aplicado à estimativa da evapotranspiração em biomas tropicais [thesis]. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul: Instituto de Pesquisas Hidráulicas/IPH; 2011. 180 p.
WILSON K, GOLDSTEIN A, FALGE E, AUBINET M, BALDOCCHI D, BERBIGIER P. et al. Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2002;113(1):223–243.
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.
