English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It is of great convenience to map daily evapotranspiration (ET) by remote sensing for agricultural water management without computing each surface energy component. This study used the operational simplified surface energy balance (SSEBop) and the remote sensing-based Penman–Monteith and Priestly–Taylor (RSPMPT) models to compute continuous daily ET over irrigated fields with the MODIS and CMADS data. The estimations were validated with eddy covariance (EC) measurements. Overall, the performance of RSPMPT with locally calibrated parameters was slightly better than that of SSEBop, with higher NSE (0.84 vs. 0.78) and R2 (0.86 vs. 0.81), lower RMSE (0.78 mm·d−1 vs. 0.90 mm·d−1), although it had higher bias (0.03 mm·d−1 vs. 0.01 mm·d−1) and PBias (1.41% vs. 0.59%). Due to the consideration of land surface temperature, the SSEBop was more sensitive to ET’s change caused by irrigation before sowing in March and had a lower PBias (6.7% vs. 39.8%) than RSPMPT. On cloudy days, the SSEBop is more likely to overestimate ET than the RSPMPT. To conclude, driven by MODIS and CMADS data, the two simple models can be easily applied to map daily ET over cropland. The SSEBop is more practical in the absence of measured data to optimize the RSPMPT model parameters.

Evaluating the SSEBop and RSPMPT Models for Irrigated Fields Daily Evapotranspiration Mapping with MODIS and CMADS Data