IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v278y2023ics0378377423000318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation and verification of two evapotranspiration models based on precision screening and partitioning of field temperature data

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao, Chunan
  • Cai, Jiabing
  • Zhang, Baozhong
  • Chang, Hongfang
  • Wei, Zheng

Abstract

Field surface temperature are essential input of an evapotranspiration (ET) model. Crop canopy and soil surface temperatures (Tc and Ts, respectively) are often mixed in the field surface temperature at early stages, due to changes in crop growth, and row and plant spacing. To ensure the accuracy of ET estimation, the Tc and Ts at actual positions included in the field temperatures should be verified and optimized. In this study, the underlying field surface temperature data were determined from thermal infrared sensors through an automatic monitoring system. These were screened and partitioned into actual Tc and Ts, with an algorithm based on maize growth conditions. The Tc replaced the average temperature of field surface in the Seguin-Itier (S-I) model, and the unified air temperature in Shuttleworth-Wallace (S-W) model was substituted by the air temperature (Ta), Tc, and Ts at actual positions. Field ET estimated by the Penman-Monteith model and the Soil Water Balance model were also analyzed, based on synchronous monitoring data of maize for comparison. Experimental data was collected over two years for three record periods, within three areas in China. These included ZhongWei in Ningxia Autonomous Region (2019–2020), ChangChun in Jilin province (2018–2019), and JieFangZha in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2015–2016). Results showed that the accuracy of estimating ET in the S-I model improved, subsequent screening the temperature data, with the average coefficient of determination and index of agreement increased by 0.13 and 0.08 respectively, and the average of the root mean square error and relative error decreased by 0.10 mm d- 1 and 2.5% respectively. The key parameters a and b in S-I model calibrated in early growth stage can be an alternative over application in whole season, which can simplify calculations while maintaining accuracy. The average values of a and b in the early stage and whole season were a= 0.408/b= −0.455 and a= 0.856/b= −0.498 in ZhongWei, a= 0.898/b= −0.913 and a= 1.039/b= −0.936 in ChangChun, and a= 0.736/b= −0.328 and a= 0.672/b= −0.310 in JieFangZha, respectively. Soil evaporation and canopy transpiration were estimated more precisely by the Revised S-W model through field temperature data partitioning. The ET estimated by the Revised S-W model is in line with the results from Penman-Monteith model and Soil Water Balance model. Moreover, this study demonstrated that estimating ET (by S-W or RS-W model) is easily influenced by weather conditions. This research provides valuable insight into determination and application of the estimation of ET using different models in different regions, and can be used in precision irrigation management.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao, Chunan & Cai, Jiabing & Zhang, Baozhong & Chang, Hongfang & Wei, Zheng, 2023. "Evaluation and verification of two evapotranspiration models based on precision screening and partitioning of field temperature data," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:278:y:2023:i:c:s0378377423000318
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377423000318
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108166?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Singh Rawat, Kishan & Kumar Singh, Sudhir & Bala, Anju & Szabó, Szilárd, 2019. "Estimation of crop evapotranspiration through spatial distributed crop coefficient in a semi-arid environment," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 922-933.
    2. Anadranistakis, M. & Liakatas, A. & Kerkides, P. & Rizos, S. & Gavanosis, J. & Poulovassilis, A., 2000. "Crop water requirements model tested for crops grown in Greece," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 297-316, August.
    3. Raziei, Tayeb & Pereira, Luis S., 2013. "Estimation of ETo with Hargreaves–Samani and FAO-PM temperature methods for a wide range of climates in Iran," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-18.
    4. Allen, Richard G. & Pereira, Luis S. & Howell, Terry A. & Jensen, Marvin E., 2011. "Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors governing measurement accuracy," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(6), pages 899-920, April.
    5. Zwart, Sander J. & Bastiaanssen, Wim G.M., 2007. "SEBAL for detecting spatial variation of water productivity and scope for improvement in eight irrigated wheat systems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 287-296, May.
    6. Valipour, Mohammad & Gholami Sefidkouhi, Mohammad Ali & Raeini−Sarjaz, Mahmoud, 2017. "Selecting the best model to estimate potential evapotranspiration with respect to climate change and magnitudes of extreme events," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 180(PA), pages 50-60.
    7. Gong, Xuewen & Liu, Hao & Sun, Jingsheng & Gao, Yang & Zhang, Hao, 2019. "Comparison of Shuttleworth-Wallace model and dual crop coefficient method for estimating evapotranspiration of tomato cultivated in a solar greenhouse," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 141-153.
    8. Chen, Dianyu & Wang, Xing & Liu, Shouyang & Wang, Youke & Gao, Zhiyong & Zhang, Linlin & Wei, Xinguang & Wei, Xindong, 2015. "Using Bayesian analysis to compare the performance of three evapotranspiration models for rainfed jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) plantations in the Loess Plateau," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 341-357.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Awada, Hassan & Di Prima, Simone & Sirca, Costantino & Giadrossich, Filippo & Marras, Serena & Spano, Donatella & Pirastru, Mario, 2022. "A remote sensing and modeling integrated approach for constructing continuous time series of daily actual evapotranspiration," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    2. Haofang Yan & Song Huang & Jianyun Zhang & Chuan Zhang & Guoqing Wang & Lanlan Li & Shuang Zhao & Mi Li & Baoshan Zhao, 2022. "Comparison of Shuttleworth–Wallace and Dual Crop Coefficient Method for Estimating Evapotranspiration of a Tea Field in Southeast China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Xiang, Keyu & Li, Yi & Horton, Robert & Feng, Hao, 2020. "Similarity and difference of potential evapotranspiration and reference crop evapotranspiration – a review," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    4. Machakaire, A.T.B. & Steyn, J.M. & Franke, A.C., 2021. "Assessing evapotranspiration and crop coefficients of potato in a semi-arid climate using Eddy Covariance techniques," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    5. Paredes, P. & Pereira, L.S. & Almorox, J. & Darouich, H., 2020. "Reference grass evapotranspiration with reduced data sets: Parameterization of the FAO Penman-Monteith temperature approach and the Hargeaves-Samani equation using local climatic variables," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    6. Mhawej, Mario & Elias, Georgie & Nasrallah, Ali & Faour, Ghaleb, 2020. "Dynamic calibration for better SEBALI ET estimations: Validations and recommendations," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    7. Nouri, Milad & Homaee, Mehdi, 2022. "Reference crop evapotranspiration for data-sparse regions using reanalysis products," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    8. Paredes, Paula & Martins, Diogo S. & Pereira, Luis Santos & Cadima, Jorge & Pires, Carlos, 2018. "Accuracy of daily estimation of grass reference evapotranspiration using ERA-Interim reanalysis products with assessment of alternative bias correction schemes," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 340-353.
    9. Paredes, P. & Pereira, L.S., 2019. "Computing FAO56 reference grass evapotranspiration PM-ETo from temperature with focus on solar radiation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 86-102.
    10. Feng, Yu & Gong, Daozhi & Mei, Xurong & Hao, Weiping & Tang, Dahua & Cui, Ningbo, 2017. "Energy balance and partitioning in partial plastic mulched and non-mulched maize fields on the Loess Plateau of China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 193-206.
    11. Immerzeel, W.W. & Gaur, A. & Zwart, S.J., 2008. "Integrating remote sensing and a process-based hydrological model to evaluate water use and productivity in a south Indian catchment," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 11-24, January.
    12. Darouich, Hanaa & Karfoul, Razan & Ramos, Tiago B. & Moustafa, Ali & Shaheen, Baraa & Pereira, Luis S., 2021. "Crop water requirements and crop coefficients for jute mallow (Corchorus olitorius L.) using the SIMDualKc model and assessing irrigation strategies for the Syrian Akkar region," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    13. Escarabajal-Henarejos, D. & Fernández-Pacheco, D.G. & Molina-Martínez, J.M. & Martínez-Molina, L. & Ruiz-Canales, A., 2015. "Selection of device to determine temperature gradients for estimating evapotranspiration using energy balance method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 136-147.
    14. Poulovassilis, A. & Anadranistakis, M. & Liakatas, A. & Alexandris, S. & Kerkides, P., 2001. "Semi-empirical approach for estimating actual evapotranspiration in Greece," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 143-152, October.
    15. Gao, Yang & Yang, Linlin & Shen, Xiaojun & Li, Xinqiang & Sun, Jingsheng & Duan, Aiwang & Wu, Laosheng, 2014. "Winter wheat with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI): Crop coefficients, water-use estimates, and effects of SDI on grain yield and water use efficiency," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-10.
    16. Xueping Zhu & Chi Zhang & Guangtao Fu & Yu Li & Wei Ding, 2017. "Bi-Level Optimization for Determining Operating Strategies for Inter-Basin Water Transfer-Supply Reservoirs," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4415-4432, November.
    17. Jovanovic, N. & Pereira, L.S. & Paredes, P. & Pôças, I. & Cantore, V. & Todorovic, M., 2020. "A review of strategies, methods and technologies to reduce non-beneficial consumptive water use on farms considering the FAO56 methods," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    18. Santos, Reginaldo Ferreira & Bassegio, Doglas & de Almeida Silva, Marcelo, 2017. "Productivity and production components of safflower genotypes affected by irrigation at phenological stages," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 66-74.
    19. Li, Xiaolin & Tong, Ling & Niu, Jun & Kang, Shaozhong & Du, Taisheng & Li, Sien & Ding, Risheng, 2017. "Spatio-temporal distribution of irrigation water productivity and its driving factors for cereal crops in Hexi Corridor, Northwest China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 55-63.
    20. Jamil, Basharat & Akhtar, Naiem, 2017. "Comparison of empirical models to estimate monthly mean diffuse solar radiation from measured data: Case study for humid-subtropical climatic region of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1326-1342.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:278:y:2023:i:c:s0378377423000318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.