IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v311y2025ics0378377425000939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of different data quality control on evapotranspiration of winter wheat with Bowen ratio method

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, Yingnan
  • Li, Qiaozhen
  • Zhong, Xiuli
  • Gong, Daozhi
  • Liu, Xiaoying

Abstract

The Bowen ratio energy balance (BREB) method is widely used to study surface evapotranspiration, but its major drawback is the uncertainty when Bowen ratio (β)→ −1. Various approaches have been employed to address this issue, but their performances were less evaluated via long-term field observations. Using data from three growing cycles, this study investigated the effect of five screening methods (Mth1 to Mth5 for −1 − |ε1| < β < −1 + |ε1|, −1.05 < β < −0.95, β < −0.75, −1.3 < β < −0.75 and β < −0.7 or β > 10 or Δe ≤ 0, Δe denotes the measured vapor pressure gradient, and ε1 is a coefficient depending on sensor resolution and Δe) on winter wheat evapotranspiration in northern China. On diurnal, daily and seasonal basis, the effect was in the order of Mth5 > Mth3 > Mth1 > Mth2 > Mth4, and the seasonal mean daily value of the gap-filled was 0.38, 0.22, 0.11, 0.01, and 0.01 mm d−1 higher than the unfilled ones, yielding a seasonal total of 96.0, 53.5, 26.0, −0.9, and 0.4 mm, or 18.9 %, 11.4 %, 6.5 %, −0.2 %, and 0.1 % higher than the unfilled ones, respectively. These values resulted from the large difference in data rejection ranking as Mth5 > Mth3 > Mth1 > Mth4 > Mth2, seasonal mean daily 10-min rejection rate ranging from 15.4–73.2 %, 10.3–48.9 %, 5.3–44.9 %, 1.6–10.4 %, and 0.5–7.3 %, respectively (averaging 42.4 %, 30.5 %, 23.2 %, 5.7 %, and 2.6 %, respectively). The corresponding daily rejected hours ranged from 6.83–8.88, 3.60–6.11, 1.85–3.49, 0.10–0.39, and 0.07–0.33 h/day, respectively (averaging 7.53, 4.77, 2.90, 0.28, and 0.24 h/day, respectively), resulting in large data gaps for Mth5 (58.8 %), Mth3 (38.2 %), and Mth1 (17.5 %). Nighttime deletion dominated for Mth2 to Mth4, accounting for 61.1 %, 64.4 %, 68.3 %, and 63.2 % of the total deletion, whereas daytime deletion dominated for Mth1, accounting for 58.1 %. A large portion of invalid rejections of Mth1 (40.4 %–77.6 %), Mth3 (54.3 %–90.9 %) and Mth5 (61.8 %–92.7 %) was observed at the selected period, which was probably a consequence of the sensor’s error cancellation effect, questioning the traditional a priori assumption that small vapor gradients within instrumental error should be discarded. Overall, large differences were observed and the simple Mth4 performed better than the more restrictive ones. These findings are expected to guide the selection of post-data processing in the application of BREB method.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, Yingnan & Li, Qiaozhen & Zhong, Xiuli & Gong, Daozhi & Liu, Xiaoying, 2025. "Effect of different data quality control on evapotranspiration of winter wheat with Bowen ratio method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:311:y:2025:i:c:s0378377425000939
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377425000939
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109379?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liu, Xiaoying & Xu, Chunying & Zhong, Xiuli & Li, Yuzhong & Yuan, Xiaohuan & Cao, Jingfeng, 2017. "Comparison of 16 models for reference crop evapotranspiration against weighing lysimeter measurement," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 145-155.
    2. Pauwels, Valentijn R.N. & Samson, Roeland, 2006. "Comparison of different methods to measure and model actual evapotranspiration rates for a wet sloping grassland," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(1-2), pages 1-24, April.
    3. Qiu, Rangjian & Liu, Chunwei & Cui, Ningbo & Wu, Youjie & Wang, Zhenchang & Li, Gen, 2019. "Evapotranspiration estimation using a modified Priestley-Taylor model in a rice-wheat rotation system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 1-1.
    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. Peter Addo Amarkai & Sinan Süheri, 2024. "Comparative Evaluation of Crop Evapotranspiration Estimation Methods in a Semi-Arid Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Lu, Yingjie & Li, Tao & Hu, Hui & Zeng, Xuemei, 2023. "Short-term prediction of reference crop evapotranspiration based on machine learning with different decomposition methods in arid areas of China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Hou, Chenli & Tian, Delong & Xu, Bing & Ren, Jie & Hao, Lei & Chen, Ning & Li, Xianyue, 2021. "Use of the stable oxygen isotope method to evaluate the difference in water consumption and utilization strategy between alfalfa and maize fields in an arid shallow groundwater area," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0245270 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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).
    6. Rana, G. & Katerji, N. & Lazzara, P. & Ferrara, R.M., 2012. "Operational determination of daily actual evapotranspiration of irrigated tomato crops under Mediterranean conditions by one-step and two-step models: Multiannual and local evaluations," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 285-296.
    7. Mattar, Mohamed A., 2018. "Using gene expression programming in monthly reference evapotranspiration modeling: A case study in Egypt," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 28-38.
    8. Abimbola, Olufemi P. & Franz, Trenton E. & Rudnick, Daran & Heeren, Derek & Yang, Haishun & Wolf, Adam & Katimbo, Abia & Nakabuye, Hope N. & Amori, Anthony, 2022. "Improving crop modeling to better simulate maize yield variability under different irrigation managements," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    9. Chen, Ning & Li, Xianyue & Shi, Haibin & Hu, Qi & Zhang, Yuehong & Hou, Chenli & Liu, Yahui, 2022. "Modeling evapotranspiration and evaporation in corn/tomato intercropping ecosystem using a modified ERIN model considering plastic film mulching," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    10. Stöckle, Claudio O. & Liu, Mingliang & Kadam, Sunil A. & Evett, Steven R. & Marek, Gary W. & Colaizzi, Paul D., 2025. "Comparing evapotranspiration estimations using crop model-data fusion and satellite data-based models with lysimetric observations: Implications for irrigation scheduling," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    11. Srivastava, R.K. & Panda, R.K. & Chakraborty, A. & Halder, D., 2018. "Comparison of actual evapotranspiration of irrigated maize in a sub-humid region using four different canopy resistance based approaches," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 156-165.
    12. Wei, Jun & Cui, Yuanlai & Luo, Yufeng, 2023. "Rice growth period detection and paddy field evapotranspiration estimation based on an improved SEBAL model: Considering the applicable conditions of the advection equation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    13. Pengrui Ai & Yingjie Ma & Ying Hai, 2023. "Comparing Simulated Jujube Evapotranspiration from P–T, Dual Kc, and S–W Models against Measurements Using a Large Weighing Lysimeter under Drip Irrigation in an Arid Area," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, February.
    14. Dong, Juan & Xing, Liwen & Cui, Ningbo & Zhao, Lu & Guo, Li & Wang, Zhihui & Du, Taisheng & Tan, Mingdong & Gong, Daozhi, 2024. "Estimating reference crop evapotranspiration using improved convolutional bidirectional long short-term memory network by multi-head attention mechanism in the four climatic zones of China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Zhang, Tao & Qiu, Rangjian & Ding, Risheng & Wu, Jingwei & Clothier, Brent, 2023. "Multi-scale spectral characteristics of latent heat flux over flooded rice and winter wheat rotation system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    17. Yang, Yong & Chen, Rensheng & Han, Chuntan & Liu, Zhangwen, 2021. "Evaluation of 18 models for calculating potential evapotranspiration in different climatic zones of China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    18. Rares Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir & Asdrubal Jesus Farias-Ramirez & Jarbas Honorio de Miranda & Maria Alejandra Moreno-Pizani & Sergio Nascimento Duarte & Franklin Javier Paredes-Trejo & Luca Salvati & Cris, 2022. "Simulation of Subsurface Drainage in the Sugarcane Crop under Different Spacing and Drain Depths," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, April.
    19. Athanasios Margonis & Georgia Papaioannou & Petros Kerkides & Gianna Kitsara & George Bourazanis, 2018. "Canopy Resistance and Actual Evapotranspiration over an Olive Orchard," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(15), pages 5007-5026, December.
    20. Xu, Junzeng & Liu, Xiaoyin & Yang, Shihong & Qi, Zhiming & Wang, Yijiang, 2017. "Modeling rice evapotranspiration under water-saving irrigation by calibrating canopy resistance model parameters in the Penman-Monteith equation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 55-66.
    21. Ding, Risheng & Kang, Shaozhong & Li, Fusheng & Zhang, Yanqun & Tong, Ling & Sun, Qingyu, 2010. "Evaluating eddy covariance method by large-scale weighing lysimeter in a maize field of northwest China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 87-95, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:311:y:2025:i:c:s0378377425000939. 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.