Next Article in Journal
Evaluating Land Subsidence Rates and Their Implications for Land Loss in the Lower Mississippi River Basin
Previous Article in Journal
Identifying the Vulnerabilities of Working Coasts Supporting Critical Energy Infrastructure
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Water 2016, 8(1), 9; doi:10.3390/w8010009

Comparison of Four Different Energy Balance Models for Estimating Evapotranspiration in the Midwestern United States

1
ASRC Federal InuTeq, Contractor to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57198, USA
2
USGS EROS Center, North Central Climate Science Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Jay R. Lund
Received: 19 October 2015 / Revised: 9 December 2015 / Accepted: 16 December 2015 / Published: 26 December 2015
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [10696 KB, uploaded 26 December 2015]   |  

Abstract

The development of different energy balance models has allowed users to choose a model based on its suitability in a region. We compared four commonly used models—Mapping EvapoTranspiration at high Resolution with Internalized Calibration (METRIC) model, Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land (SEBAL) model, Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) model, and the Operational Simplified Surface Energy Balance (SSEBop) model—using Landsat images to estimate evapotranspiration (ET) in the Midwestern United States. Our models validation using three AmeriFlux cropland sites at Mead, Nebraska, showed that all four models captured the spatial and temporal variation of ET reasonably well with an R2 of more than 0.81. Both the METRIC and SSEBop models showed a low root mean square error (<0.93 mm·day−1) and a high Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency (>0.80), whereas the SEBAL and SEBS models resulted in relatively higher bias for estimating daily ET. The empirical equation of daily average net radiation used in the SEBAL and SEBS models for upscaling instantaneous ET to daily ET resulted in underestimation of daily ET, particularly when the daily average net radiation was more than 100 W·m−2. Estimated daily ET for both cropland and grassland had some degree of linearity with METRIC, SEBAL, and SEBS, but linearity was stronger for evaporative fraction. Thus, these ET models have strengths and limitations for applications in water resource management. View Full-Text
Keywords: comparison; evapotranspiration; METRIC; SEBAL; SEBS; SSEBop; Landsat; remote sensing comparison; evapotranspiration; METRIC; SEBAL; SEBS; SSEBop; Landsat; remote sensing
Figures

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Singh, R.K.; Senay, G.B. Comparison of Four Different Energy Balance Models for Estimating Evapotranspiration in the Midwestern United States. Water 2016, 8, 9.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top