Prediction of Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration Fluxes Using Six Meteorological Data-Based Approaches for a Range of Climate and Land Cover Types. Mobilia, M. & Longobardi, A. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3):192, March, 2021. ![Prediction of Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration Fluxes Using Six Meteorological Data-Based Approaches for a Range of Climate and Land Cover Types [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Evapotranspiration is the major component of the water cycle, so a correct estimate of this variable is fundamental. The purpose of the present research is to assess the monthly scale accuracy of six meteorological data-based models in the prediction of evapotranspiration (ET) losses by comparing the modelled fluxes with the observed ones from eight sites equipped with eddy covariance stations which differ in terms of vegetation and climate type. Three potential ET methods (Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, and Blaney-Criddle models) and three actual ET models (the Advection-Aridity, the Granger and Gray, and the Antecedent Precipitation Index method) have been proposed. The findings show that the models performances differ from site to site and they depend on the vegetation and climate characteristics. Indeed, they show a wide range of error values ranging from 0.18 to 2.78. It has been not possible to identify a single model able to outperform the others in each biome, but in general, the Advection-Aridity approach seems to be the most accurate, especially when the model calibration in not carried out. It returns very low error values close to 0.38. When the calibration procedure is performed, the most accurate model is the Granger and Gray approach with minimum error of 0.13 but, at the same time, it is the most impacted by this process, and therefore, in a context of data scarcity, it results the less recommended for ET prediction. The performances of the investigated ET approaches have been furthermore tested in case of lack of measured data of soil heat fluxes and net radiation considering using empirical relationships based on meteorological data to derive these variables. Results show that, the use of empirical formulas to derive ET estimates increases the errors up to 200% with the consequent loss of model accuracy.
@article{mobilia_prediction_2021,
title = {Prediction of {Potential} and {Actual} {Evapotranspiration} {Fluxes} {Using} {Six} {Meteorological} {Data}-{Based} {Approaches} for a {Range} of {Climate} and {Land} {Cover} {Types}},
volume = {10},
issn = {2220-9964},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/10/3/192},
doi = {10.3390/ijgi10030192},
abstract = {Evapotranspiration is the major component of the water cycle, so a correct estimate of this variable is fundamental. The purpose of the present research is to assess the monthly scale accuracy of six meteorological data-based models in the prediction of evapotranspiration (ET) losses by comparing the modelled fluxes with the observed ones from eight sites equipped with eddy covariance stations which differ in terms of vegetation and climate type. Three potential ET methods (Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, and Blaney-Criddle models) and three actual ET models (the Advection-Aridity, the Granger and Gray, and the Antecedent Precipitation Index method) have been proposed. The findings show that the models performances differ from site to site and they depend on the vegetation and climate characteristics. Indeed, they show a wide range of error values ranging from 0.18 to 2.78. It has been not possible to identify a single model able to outperform the others in each biome, but in general, the Advection-Aridity approach seems to be the most accurate, especially when the model calibration in not carried out. It returns very low error values close to 0.38. When the calibration procedure is performed, the most accurate model is the Granger and Gray approach with minimum error of 0.13 but, at the same time, it is the most impacted by this process, and therefore, in a context of data scarcity, it results the less recommended for ET prediction. The performances of the investigated ET approaches have been furthermore tested in case of lack of measured data of soil heat fluxes and net radiation considering using empirical relationships based on meteorological data to derive these variables. Results show that, the use of empirical formulas to derive ET estimates increases the errors up to 200\% with the consequent loss of model accuracy.},
language = {en},
number = {3},
urldate = {2022-10-26},
journal = {ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information},
author = {Mobilia, Mirka and Longobardi, Antonia},
month = mar,
year = {2021},
pages = {192},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"yeCJxbJytqo35pea9","bibbaseid":"mobilia-longobardi-predictionofpotentialandactualevapotranspirationfluxesusingsixmeteorologicaldatabasedapproachesforarangeofclimateandlandcovertypes-2021","author_short":["Mobilia, M.","Longobardi, A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Prediction of Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration Fluxes Using Six Meteorological Data-Based Approaches for a Range of Climate and Land Cover Types","volume":"10","issn":"2220-9964","url":"https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/10/3/192","doi":"10.3390/ijgi10030192","abstract":"Evapotranspiration is the major component of the water cycle, so a correct estimate of this variable is fundamental. The purpose of the present research is to assess the monthly scale accuracy of six meteorological data-based models in the prediction of evapotranspiration (ET) losses by comparing the modelled fluxes with the observed ones from eight sites equipped with eddy covariance stations which differ in terms of vegetation and climate type. Three potential ET methods (Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, and Blaney-Criddle models) and three actual ET models (the Advection-Aridity, the Granger and Gray, and the Antecedent Precipitation Index method) have been proposed. The findings show that the models performances differ from site to site and they depend on the vegetation and climate characteristics. Indeed, they show a wide range of error values ranging from 0.18 to 2.78. It has been not possible to identify a single model able to outperform the others in each biome, but in general, the Advection-Aridity approach seems to be the most accurate, especially when the model calibration in not carried out. It returns very low error values close to 0.38. When the calibration procedure is performed, the most accurate model is the Granger and Gray approach with minimum error of 0.13 but, at the same time, it is the most impacted by this process, and therefore, in a context of data scarcity, it results the less recommended for ET prediction. The performances of the investigated ET approaches have been furthermore tested in case of lack of measured data of soil heat fluxes and net radiation considering using empirical relationships based on meteorological data to derive these variables. Results show that, the use of empirical formulas to derive ET estimates increases the errors up to 200% with the consequent loss of model accuracy.","language":"en","number":"3","urldate":"2022-10-26","journal":"ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Mobilia"],"firstnames":["Mirka"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Longobardi"],"firstnames":["Antonia"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"March","year":"2021","pages":"192","bibtex":"@article{mobilia_prediction_2021,\n\ttitle = {Prediction of {Potential} and {Actual} {Evapotranspiration} {Fluxes} {Using} {Six} {Meteorological} {Data}-{Based} {Approaches} for a {Range} of {Climate} and {Land} {Cover} {Types}},\n\tvolume = {10},\n\tissn = {2220-9964},\n\turl = {https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/10/3/192},\n\tdoi = {10.3390/ijgi10030192},\n\tabstract = {Evapotranspiration is the major component of the water cycle, so a correct estimate of this variable is fundamental. The purpose of the present research is to assess the monthly scale accuracy of six meteorological data-based models in the prediction of evapotranspiration (ET) losses by comparing the modelled fluxes with the observed ones from eight sites equipped with eddy covariance stations which differ in terms of vegetation and climate type. Three potential ET methods (Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, and Blaney-Criddle models) and three actual ET models (the Advection-Aridity, the Granger and Gray, and the Antecedent Precipitation Index method) have been proposed. The findings show that the models performances differ from site to site and they depend on the vegetation and climate characteristics. Indeed, they show a wide range of error values ranging from 0.18 to 2.78. It has been not possible to identify a single model able to outperform the others in each biome, but in general, the Advection-Aridity approach seems to be the most accurate, especially when the model calibration in not carried out. It returns very low error values close to 0.38. When the calibration procedure is performed, the most accurate model is the Granger and Gray approach with minimum error of 0.13 but, at the same time, it is the most impacted by this process, and therefore, in a context of data scarcity, it results the less recommended for ET prediction. The performances of the investigated ET approaches have been furthermore tested in case of lack of measured data of soil heat fluxes and net radiation considering using empirical relationships based on meteorological data to derive these variables. Results show that, the use of empirical formulas to derive ET estimates increases the errors up to 200\\% with the consequent loss of model accuracy.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2022-10-26},\n\tjournal = {ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information},\n\tauthor = {Mobilia, Mirka and Longobardi, Antonia},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {192},\n}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Mobilia, M.","Longobardi, A."],"key":"mobilia_prediction_2021","id":"mobilia_prediction_2021","bibbaseid":"mobilia-longobardi-predictionofpotentialandactualevapotranspirationfluxesusingsixmeteorologicaldatabasedapproachesforarangeofclimateandlandcovertypes-2021","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/10/3/192"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/tereno","dataSources":["cq3J5xX6zmBvc2TQC"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["prediction","potential","actual","evapotranspiration","fluxes","using","six","meteorological","data","based","approaches","range","climate","land","cover","types","mobilia","longobardi"],"title":"Prediction of Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration Fluxes Using Six Meteorological Data-Based Approaches for a Range of Climate and Land Cover Types","year":2021}