Next Article in Journal
Application of Beamforming Technology in Ionospheric Oblique Backscatter Sounding with a Miniaturized L-Array
Previous Article in Journal
A Refined SNR Based Stochastic Model to Reduce Site-Dependent Effects
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimation of Surface Downward Shortwave Radiation over China from Himawari-8 AHI Data Based on Random Forest
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Assessment of Using Remote Sensing-based Models to Estimate Ground Surface Soil Heat Flux on the Tibetan Plateau during the Freeze-thaw Process

1
Cryosphere Research Station on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Sciences, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(3), 501; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030501
Submission received: 27 November 2019 / Revised: 31 January 2020 / Accepted: 31 January 2020 / Published: 4 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Land Surface Radiation Budget)

Abstract

:
The ground surface soil heat flux (G0) is very important to simulate the changes of frozen ground and the active layer thickness; in addition, the freeze-thaw cycle will also affect G0 on the Tibetan Plateau (TP). As G0 could not be measured directly and soil heat flux is difficult to be observed on the TP in situ due to its high altitude and cold environment, most of previous studies have directly applied existing remote sensing-based models to estimate G0 without assessing whether the selected model is the best one of those models for those study regions. We use in-situ observation data collected at 12 sites combined with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data (MOD13Q1, MODLT1D, MOD09CMG, and MCD15A2H) and the China meteorological forcing dataset (CMFD-SRad and CMFD-LRad) to validate the main models during the freeze-thaw process. The results show that during the three stages (complete freezing (CF), daily freeze-thaw cycle (DFT), and complete thawing (CT)) of the freeze-thaw cycle, the root mean square error (RMSE) between the models’ G0 simulated value and the corresponding G0 “measured value” is the largest in the CT phase and smallest in the CF phase. The simulated results of the second group schemes (SEBAL, Ma, SEBALadj, and Maadj) were slightly underestimated, more stable, and closer to the measured values than the first group schemes (Choudhury, Clawson, SEBS, Choudhuryadj, Clawsonadj, and SEBSadj). The Maadj scheme is the one with the smallest RMSE among all the schemes and could be directly applied across the entire TP. Then, four possible reasons leading to the errors of the main schemes were analyzed. The soil moisture affecting the ratio G0/Rn and the phase shift between G0 and net radiation Rn are not considered in the schemes directly; the scheme cannot completely and correctly capture the direction of G0; and the input data of the schemes to estimate the regional G0 maybe bring some errors into the simulated results. The results are expected to provide a basis for selecting remote sensing-based models to simulate G0 in frozen ground dynamics and to calculate evapotranspiration on the TP during the freeze-thaw process. The scheme Maadj suitable for the TP was also offered in the study. We proposed several improvement directions of remote sensing-based models in order to enhance understanding of the energy exchange between the ground surface and the atmosphere.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The Tibetan Plateau (TP) faces the subtropical zone in the south and the middle latitudes in the north. It spans over 25° longitude from east to west, accounting for about a quarter of China’s land area, with an average elevation of over 4000 m [1,2]. The TP, known as the third pole of the earth, affects climate change in important ways. This occurs because of the dynamic action of the high terrain and the thermal influence of the strong heat source of the earth’s surface and its upper atmospheric column [3,4]. The energy and water cycle in the TP is one of the main parts of the global energy and water cycles [5,6]. A large area of frozen ground covers some of the TP. With global warming, researchers are very concerned about the effects of climate warming on frozen ground’s changes. Understanding the ground surface soil heat flux is one of the starting points needed to clarify these effects.
Measurement of the ground surface soil heat flux (G0) is an important component of calculating the surface energy balance and represents the energy released into or from the soil. Estimating G0 is a concern for almost all the energy balance analyses done by atmospheric boundary layer observatories and is part of the study of the effects of climate change on frozen ground [7]. Due to the particularity of the plateau climate, a process of daily and seasonal freeze-thaw occurs in the surface soil. This will not only alter the thermal conditions in soil but also cause major differences in soil heat conduction and in the energy exchange between the soil and the nearby upper atmosphere during the state of freezing and ablation. The thermal conductivity and heat capacity of frozen ground are quite different from those of the ablation soil [8,9,10]. The seasonal freeze-thaw cycles of near-surface soil significantly affect the energy balance of the surface. The freezing and thawing of the soil on the TP reflect the changes in the water-heat exchange between the plateau land and atmosphere. The existence of a thin frozen layer will fundamentally affect the direct water-heat exchange between the atmosphere and deep soil [11]. As the energy exchange between soil and atmosphere mainly occurs at the interface layer, the freezing and thawing of shallow soil is particularly important when studying G0 on the TP.
Measurements of G0 can be obtained using the actual observed soil temperature, soil moisture, and shallow soil heat flux data at experimental sites [12], but soil temperature and moisture data cannot be obtained directly through optical remote sensing imagery [13,14]. The basic idea of estimating G0 using remote sensing-based models is based on the fact that if the ratio of G0 to net radiation (Rn) can be acquired, then we can employ the ratio to estimate G0 using remote sensing data. Different forms of remote sensing-based models used for estimating G0 come from the estimation of G0/Rn using different land surface parameters. Some use only vegetation data to estimate this ratio, such as the NDVI-based (normalized difference vegetation index) scheme of Clawson [15,16], the LAI-based (leaf area index) scheme of Choudhury [17], and fc-based (fractional canopy coverage) scheme known as the surface energy Balance System (SEBS) [18]. Others also consider land surface temperature and surface albedo in addition to a vegetation index, such as the schemes of the Surface Energy Balance for Land (SEBAL) [13] and Ma [19]. Ma et al. [19,20] proposed the use of modified soil adjusted vegetation index (MSAVI) in arid and semi-arid as well as in high altitudes regions, instead of NDVI. Therefore, the scheme of Ma is similar to the scheme of SEBAL. It is important to use an accurate ratio (G0/Rn) to accurately estimate G0; most methods directly introduce a certain scheme to estimate G0 and lack verification of the model, which may lead to some estimated errors caused by inappropriate model selection. Meanwhile, a few studies [21,22] have tested and verified remote sensing-based models; the evaluations of these models have mainly been concentrated in the complete melting stage (in summer) during the freeze-thaw cycle, which also has a great influence on simulating G0 [23]. Therefore, it can be seen that analyzing the regional adaptability of remote sensing-based models and determining the appropriate model in a specific region is a very important step in G0 estimation and research using remote sensing data during the freeze-thaw cycle across the TP [24].
In-situ measurement data of 12 observed sites, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data (specifically MOD13Q1, MODLT1D, MOD09CMG, and MCD15A2H), and the China meteorological forcing dataset (CMFD-SRad and CMFD-LRad) were applied in this study. We adjusted and evaluated the applicability of five remote sensing-based models estimating G0 (Choudhury, Clawson, SEBS, SEBAL, and Ma) during the freeze-thaw cycle on the TP. Additionally, the sensitivity of these schemes to land surface parameters (land surface temperature, land surface albedo, and vegetation indices) was analyzed. We also discussed the possible sources of error in the models. It can provide some substantial evidence for improving remote sensing-based models to estimate G0 on the TP.

2. Study Regions and Data

2.1. Study Regions

Observational data were collected from 12 automatic weather stations listed in Figure 1. This background map (Figure 1) shows the spatial distribution of frozen ground on the TP [25]. The Binggou site is located in the alpine meadow valley of the Binggou sub-basin in the upper reaches of the Heihe River. The east and west sides are continuous hills and mountains. The surrounding area is relatively flat and covered by a mixture of sparse grassland and riverbed gravel. The AYKMS site is located at the sparse desert grasslands of the boundary region between the permafrost and the seasonally frozen ground of the TP. The XDTMS sparse desert grasslands lie in the alpine steppe of the permafrost region near the northern lower limit of the permafrost on the TP. The TGLMS site is located in the alpine meadow of the predominantly continuous permafrost region. The observed area around the BGGRASS site is relatively flat and covered with alpine grassland, which is 2–4 cm tall. Alpine grassland is the main land surface type of Biru site. The Jiali site falls within the sub-frigid zone and semi-humid monsoon climate regions of the Plateau, with sufficient sunshine and strong radiation. The Naqu site is located in the alpine grassland of Naqu Valley and lies within the sub-frigid zone and semi-humid climate regions of Plateau [26]. The Nierong Site is affected by the terrain; the cold and dry climate falls within the sub-arid and semi-arid monsoon climate zone of Plateau. The terrain around the site is broad, expansive, and relatively flat and supports alpine meadow [27]. The Linzhou site is located in a valley surrounded by relatively flat of the alpine desert. Shiquanhe is located in the western part of the TP and has sparse and short grassland that is generally only a few centimeters tall. This part of the plateau experiences a cold zone monsoon arid climate. The solar radiation is strong with frequently strong surface wind speeds; the air is dry with less rain than other areas and experiences large daily temperature differences [28]. Amdo station has a relatively smooth surface with a very open view where sparse plateau meadow covers the ground.

2.2. Data Sources

2.2.1. In-Situ Measurement Data

The above 12 sites used in this study provided data for net radiation (Rn, downward/upward shortwave and longwave radiation), precipitation, soil temperature and humidity profiles, land surface temperature, and soil heat flux (Table 1). The data acquisition interval was 30 min. The observed data of the Binggou site were acquired from the Cold and Arid Regions Sciences Data Center (http://westdc.westgis.ac.cn/data/30617ca4-f46e-4254-a40a-5d0fbea58ed2). Meanwhile, the data for the AYKMS, TGLMS, and XDTMS sites were provided by the Cryosphere Research Station on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.crs.ac.cn/), while the measured data of the other eight sites were downloaded from the National Meteorological Information Center (http://tipex.data.cma.cn/tipex). Precipitation data were used to eliminate data based on unusual weather. Soil heat flux, soil temperature, and soil moisture data were used to calculate G0. Downward/upward shortwave radiation was used to calculate the land surface albedo in addition to Rn. In addition, Rn, land surface temperature, and land surface albedo acted as input parameters for the remote sensing-based models in estimating G0.
Measured land surface temperature data (Ts) were unavailable for seven stations (Binggou, Amdo, BGGRASS, Biru, Jiali, Naqu, and Nierong), but the in-situ LST measurements were estimated from the upwelling and downwelling longwave radiation data using the Stefan–Boltzmann law [29,30]:
T s = [ R L ( 1 ε s ) R L ε s σ ] 1 / 4 273.15 ,
where Ts is the land surface temperature (unit: °C), RL and RL are the incoming and outgoing longwave radiation powers, respectively (unit: W/m2), σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W·m−2·K−4), and εs is the land surface emissivity, which is approximately 0.987 at Binggou [31] and 0.98 at the other six sites [32].

2.2.2. Remote Sensing Data (MODIS) and China Meteorological Forcing Dataset

Vegetation indices used in the study include NDVI, modified soil adjusted vegetation index (MSAVI), fc, and LAI. These data were not observation-based but retrieved from remote sensing data (Table 2). MODIS product MCD15A2H including LAI is an 8-day composite dataset with 500 m pixel size. The algorithm chooses the “best” pixel available from all the acquisitions of both MODIS sensors located on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites from within the 8-day period [33]. The NDVI data were obtained from the MODIS vegetation index product MOD13Q1; these data were produced on 16-day intervals and at 250 m spatial resolution. The modified soil adjusted vegetation index (MSAVI) was also calculated from the product MOD13Q1 by Equation (2) [34]:
M S A V I = 2 N I R + 1 ( 2 N I R + 1 ) 2 8 ( N I R R E D ) 2 ,
where RED and NIR are land surface reflectance values of RED and NIR bands of MOD13Q1, respectively. The fractional canopy coverage fc can be obtained by NDVI [35]:
f c = [ N D V I N D V I min N D V I max N D V I min ] 2 ,
where NDVImax and NDVImin are the NDVI values for bare soil and full vegetation, respectively.
The product MODLT1D was made using MOD11A1 through splicing, cutting, and projection conversion (http://www.gscloud.cn) with 1 km spatial resolution, provided along with the daytime and nighttime surface temperature bands associated using quality control assessments. The MOD09CMG product provides an estimate of the surface spectral reflectance of MODIS Bands 1 through 7, resampled to 5600 m pixel resolution and corrected for atmospheric conditions such as gasses, aerosols, and Rayleigh scattering.
China meteorological forcing dataset (CMFD, https://data.tpdc.ac.cn) developed by the Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, was used as the model input in this study. The dataset has merged the observations from 740 operational stations of the China Meteorological Administration with the corresponding Princeton Global Meteorological Forcing Dataset [36,37,38]. The parameters used in this study included downward shortwave (SRad) and downward longwave (LRad) radiation. These two parameters have a 10 km spatial resolution and a temporal resolution of 3 h (Table 2). All parameters provided or retrieved by MODIS data were converted to the same projection coordinate as CMFD datasets and resampled to 10 × 10 km. The transit time of the Terra satellite was local time 10:30 a.m., and TP was in the range of 75°E to 105°E (Beijing standard time 11:30–13:30); we chose the average values of CMFD corresponding to Beijing standard time 11:00 and 14:00.

3. Methods

Figure 2 shows the general steps used for deriving the G0 in this paper. The green box demonstrates the process of calculating G0 at sites based on the measured data (details in Section 3.1). The content in the purple irregular wireframe shows the process of adjusting and selecting the G0 parameterization schemes (Section 3.2), and that in the red irregular wireframe presents the steps for estimating G0 over the TP by the selected scheme using MODIS data and forcing datasets (Section 3.3).

3.1. Estimate G0 at a Site

The G0 estimation started with the soil 1-D heat conduction equation [7]:
ρ s c s T t = G z
G = k s T z   ,
where ρs is the soil density (unit: kg/m3), cs is the soil specific heat (unit: J∙kg−1∙K−1), T is the soil temperature (unit: K), t is time (unit: s), z is the soil depth (unit: m, the downward direction is taken as positive), ks is the soil heat conduction coefficient (unit: W∙K−1∙m−1), and G is the soil heat flux (unit: W/m2, the direction down here is positive).
By integrating Equation (4), the G0 is obtained:
G 0 = G ( z ref ) + z ref 0 ρ s c s T t d z ,
where zref is the reference depth (it was 0.10 m in this study), and G(zref) is the soil heat flux at the depth of the reference location.
For sites on the TP, there is a freeze-thaw process in the soil near the surface, so the ice thermal capacity should also be considered [7,39], so the discrete form of Equation (6) can be expressed as
G 0 = G 0.10 m + ( ρ dry c dry + ρ w c w θ 0.05 m + ρ i c i ϑ i , 0.05 m ) t 0.10 ,
where θ0.05m is the unfrozen water content at 0.05 m depth (unit: m3∙m−3), ρdrycdry is the thermal capacity of dry soil (about 0.90 × 106 J∙m−3∙K−1) [40], ρwcw is the thermal capacity of liquid water (4.2 × 106 J∙m−3∙K−1), and ρici is the ice thermal capacity (1.89 × 106 J∙m−3∙K−1). There were three different stages for the calculation of the soil ice content at 5-cm depth ϑi,0.05m:
(1) When the soil layer above 0.05 m was completely thawed, no ice existed in the layer ( ϑ i , 0.05 m = 0 );
(2) When the daily freeze-thaw stage of the soil layer was above 0.05 m, the soil ice content ϑi,0.05m was approximately obtained by the difference of the steady unfrozen water content before and after the daily freeze-thaw stage of this soil layer. ϑi,0.05m can be calculated using Equation (8) [41]:
ρ i ϑ i , 0.05 m ¯ T = ρ w θ 0.05 m ¯ T
(3) When the soil layer above 5 cm was completely frozen, ϑi,0.05m equals the soil ice content of the last day of the daily freeze-thaw stage. It should be noted that the ice content was variable even if the soil was frozen, but such ice content variation was small in the frozen stages, so the ice content was approximately regarded as a constant during the frozen stages in the calculations [39]. The daily freeze-thaw stages were estimated based on the soil temperatures T0.05m and unfrozen water contents θ0.05m [39].

3.2. Introduction and Adjustments to G0 Parameterization Schemes

3.2.1. Introduction and Adjustments to G0 Parameterization Schemes

Several empirical remote sensing models can be used to estimate Γ(G0/Rn), such as Choudhury [17], Clawson [15], SEBAL [13], Ma [19], and SEBS [18]. Choudhury et al. [17] expressed the relationship (the Choudhury scheme) between G0 and Rn as an exponential function of the LAI with a correlation coefficient of 0.93:
G 0 / R n = 0.4 e 0.5 L A I
A detailed description of the other four schemes is presented in Table 3 of Yang et al. [23]. It should be noted that the Moran scheme is named the Clawson scheme in this study, which uses an exponential function of NDVI to the ratio of G0/Rn [15,16]. In addition, Yang et al. [23] found that the ratio Γs of soil heat flux to net radiation for bare soil in the SEBS scheme should be less than 0.315 on the TP, which needs to be adjusted later.
SEBALadj, Maadj, Choudhuryadj, Clawsonadj, and SEBSadj are the modified versions of the SEBAL, Ma, Choudhury, Clawson, and SEBS models, respectively (Table 3) and the modified versions of the five schemes are shown in Appendix A. So far, 10 schemes remain and need further discussion.

3.2.2. Indicators to Evaluate the Applicability of G0 Parameterization Schemes

This study evaluates the applicability of each scheme over the TP from their errors and their sensitivity to land surface parameters during the freeze-thaw process.
The accuracies of the values produced by the models were evaluated using the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean bias error (MBE), defined as follows:
R M S E = j = 1 m ( P j G j ) 2 m
M B E = j = 1 m ( P j G j ) m
where Pj is the modeled value, Gj is the measured value, and m is the number of samples. We can choose the best one from the 10 models based on the RMSE and MBE.
These remote sensing-based schemes estimate G0 based on the proportional relationship between G0 and Rn. The difference between the schemes is that some models only use a vegetation index to estimate G0/Rn, while others use land surface temperature and albedo as well as a vegetation index to estimate G0/Rn. In addition, the net radiation Rn was obtained through Equation (13). The mathematical formulas of the schemes (Table 3) and Equation (13) were merged. It can be seen that their sensitivities to land surface temperature Ts, land surface albedo α, and the vegetation index VI (LAI, NDVI, MSAVI, and fc) can be derived from the percentage change of simulated G0 values when increasing or reducing the observed Ts by 1 K, the measured α by 0.02, or VI by 0.1 [43]:
{ V R + accuracy = j = 1 N | G + accuracy G base | N V R accuracy = j = 1 N | G accuracy G base | N V R accuracy = max { V R + accuracy , V R accuracy }
where VR+accuracy and VR−accuracy indicate the average change of simulated G0 values by increasing and reducing the “observed” Ts by 1 K or the measured α by 0.02, respectively; VRaccuracy is the ultimate sensitivity coefficient; Gbase is the simulated G0 value from observed data corresponding to the unchanged land surface temperature Ts, unchanged land surface albedo α, and unchanged vegetation index. Meanwhile, G+accuracy and G−accuracy represent the simulated G0 value when the “observed” Ts is increased or decreased by 1 K or the measured α is increased or decreased by 0.02 or remotely sensed VI is increased or decreased by 0.1, respectively. N is the number of samples.

3.3. Estimating Regional G0 on the TP

We used the evaluation indices (RMSE and MBE) in Section 3.2 to select the optimal scheme on the TP and then obtain all the parameters by remote sensing data that were needed for the optimal scheme; these were input into the scheme to obtain the spatial distribution characteristics of G0 on the TP. All schemes required the use of net radiation, land surface albedo, surface temperature, and vegetation index as inputs; the remote sensing inversion algorithm for the vegetation index was introduced in Section 2.2.2. Here, we only introduce the methods for obtaining the remaining land surface parameters by remote sensing and reanalyzed data.
The net radiation Rn can be obtained through Equation (13) [44]:
R n = R S R S + R L R L R S = α R S R L = σ ε s T s 4 + ( 1 ε s ) R L } R n = ( 1 α ) R S + ε s R L σ ε s T s 4
where RS and RS are the upwelling and downwelling shortwave radiation (W∙m−2), respectively, and RL and RL are the downwelling and upwelling longwave radiation (W∙m−2), respectively. The product MODLT1D can provide Ts (the scale-factor is 0.02 and the unit is Kelvin). The instantaneous value of land surface albedo α in the time range from 10:00 to 16:00 is approximately equal to the daily average value of land surface albedo α ¯ on the same day [23]. In addition, the land surface instantaneous albedo α can be derived from bands 1–5 and band 7 data in the MODIS product MOD09CMG and an empirical Equation (14) [45]:
α = 0.160 × R 1 + 0.291 × R 2 + 0.243 × R 3 + 0.116 × R 4 + 0.112 × R 5 + 0.018 × R 7 0.0015
The errors in MODIS land surface temperature measurements and land surface albedo estimated using Equation (14) and MOD/MYD09, are 1 K [46] and 0.02 [47], respectively. εs is the land surface emissivity, which was calculated using Equation (15) [48]:
ε s = { 0.973 , N D V I < 0.05 0.986 + 0.004 f c , 0.05 N D V I 0.7 0.99 , N D V I > 0.7 .

4. Results

4.1. Errors of the Schemes during the Freeze-Thaw Process

The errors of the models were evaluated by RMSE and MBE using the data from four sites (TGL, Naqu, Biru, and Nierong) of the verification group (Figure 3). The RMSE values of the 10 schemes (five original schemes and five corresponding adjusted schemes) were recorded in the three stages of a freeze-thaw cycle. We can see that, overall, the RMSE values of the adjusted schemes based on the measured data of the eight sites are smaller than those of the original schemes. This is particularly obvious for the Choudhury scheme. The RMSE of the adjusted Choudhuryadj scheme is significantly smaller than the original Choudhury scheme. This phenomenon once again shows that if measured data are used, it is best to re-determine the empirical coefficients in a remote sensing-based model based on the measured data and then use it to conduct related research.
The RMSE of each scheme was significantly different throughout the freeze-thaw cycle (Figure 3a); the RMSE values of the three stages are roughly presented as a whole: CF < DFT < CT. The order may depend on whether a particular scheme is better able to correctly capture the direction of G0 when G0 and Rn are different in the three phases. When the direction of G0 and Rn is different (Table 6), the data volume of the three stages is CT > DFT ≈ CF, and the amount of analog data that can correctly capture the G0 direction is CF > DFT > CT, which directly leads to the smallest RMSE in the CF stage and the largest RMSE in the CT stage. The MBE of the CT stage, whether overestimated or underestimated, is less than that of the other two stages, while the MBE values of the other two stages are near to each other (Figure 3b).
For convenience, we divided the schemes into two groups according to the factors considered in them. The first group of schemes simulates G0/Rn value using a vegetation index alone (Choudhury, Clawson, SEBS, Choudhuryadj, Clawsonadj, and SEBSadj). Meanwhile, the second group schemes are based on Ts, α, and a vegetation index (NDVI or MSAVI) to estimate the G0/Rn value (SEBAL, Ma, SEBALadj, and Maadj). An individual one of the first group of schemes was slightly better in a certain stage of the freeze-thaw cycle, but overall, the RMSE values of the second group schemes was smaller (Figure 3a). Overall, the first group schemes simulations were obviously overestimated, and those of another group were weakly underestimated (Figure 3b). This study considers that the Maadj scheme is more suitable for estimating G0 on the TP. In addition, MSAVI is more suitable for arid and semi-arid or high-elevation areas than NDVI [19,20,49]. The eight sites that determined the scheme not only are very evenly distributed on the TP but also include the main land surface and frozen ground types, which can represent the overall situation of the TP; the RMSEs of the schemes in any of the three stages (CF, DFT, and CM) were also relatively close with a minimum of difference. If no measured data are available, the Maadj scheme can be considered for direct use on the TP.

4.2. Regional G0 on the TP

This study mainly focused on the applicability of the G0 parameterization scheme on the TP during the freeze-thaw cycle. Due to data limitations, this study selected the day with the largest proportion of valid data per month during a four-month period (July and October 2014, January and April 2015) to show the simulated G0 by the scheme Maadj during the freeze-thaw cycle. We selected the four days (July 24, 2014, October 25, 2014, January 21, 2015, and April 26, 2015) according to the quality control documents of the remote sensing land surface temperature product MODLT1D (Figure 4). The CMFD downward shortwave (CMFD-SRad) and longwave (CMFD-LRad) radiation data have proven to have reasonable accuracy with the in-situ measurements over the TP, which means that the two CMFD datasets can be used as model inputs [38]. The method to estimate net radiation Rn over the TP by regional data (MODIS products and CMFD datasets) is described in detail in Section 3.3. Although some data are missing, it can roughly reflect the seasonal differences of land surface temperature (Figure 5), net radiation (Figure 6), and ground surface soil heat flux (Figure 7) on the TP, which are higher in July, are lower in October and January, and become high again in April.
Due to the absence of both remote sensing and measured data and consideration of a spatial homogeneity (10 km), only 11 measured G0(Rn) values corresponding to the simulated G0(Rn) values were available. As shown in Figure 9a,b, the estimates of net radiation and ground surface soil heat flux show reasonable agreement with the in-situ measurements. The RMSEs for the net radiation flux and soil heat flux are 114.43 and 45.99 W/m2. The RMSE (45.99 W/m2) obtained from the regional data (MODIS and CMFD) as the input of the scheme Maadj is close to that (Figure 3a) obtained from the measured data as the input of the scheme Maadj. The slope of the fitting line between “observed” and simulated G0 values was slightly less than but very close to 1 (0.83; Figure 8b), This tells us there was a slight underestimation of the simulated results; The coefficient of determination R2 is 0.87. These indicators (RMSE, MBE, and R2) indicate that satisfactory results can be obtained by using the Maadj scheme. It should be noted that some bias exists between the estimated G0 and ground measurements. The causes of the scheme errors are analyzed in detail in Section 5.2.

5. Discussion

5.1. The Sensitivity of Remote Sensing-Based Schemes to Land Surface Parameters

According to the sensitivity analysis indexes in Section 3.2.2, the sensitivity values of three stages of freeze-thaw process of each scheme can be determined. The Choudhury scheme is used as an example to illustrate the sensitivity of this scheme to three surface parameters (Table 4). There are three cases for each land surface parameter: base + accuracy, base, and base − accuracy, so each scheme has 26 variations (33–1 = 26, three to the third power indicates that there are three changes in each land surface parameter (+ accuracy, base, and − accuracy), and three land surface parameters (Ts, α, or VI) are considered in common; subtracting 1 is the case when three land surface parameters are all original values), where the largest VR value is used as VRaccuracy of the scheme.
The same idea is to get VRaccuracy of each scheme (Table 5); we know that, overall, these schemes that are based on Ts, α, and VI are more stable than others based on only VI. That is, when remotely sensed products are used as input parameters of remote sensing-based schemes, the results simulated by the schemes based on Ts, α, and VI are more stable. In addition, VRaccuracy values of the adjusted schemes (Choudhuryadj, Clawsonadj, and SEBSadj) based on the vegetation index are significantly reduced (Table 5), which tells us their simulated results are more stable than those of their original schemes (Choudhury, Clawson, and SEBS). The VRaccuracy values of the two adjusted schemes (SEBALadj and Maadj) are larger than that of the two original schemes (SEBAL and Ma), although the difference is still no more than 2 W/m2, which shows that the two adjusted schemes are more sensitive to land surface parameters within acceptable limits.

5.2. Analysis of the Causes of the Scheme Errors

Through a review of previous research [13,15,17,18,19,23,38] and the above findings of the present study, we knew that remote sensing-based models can provide satisfactory simulation results, and their application is convenient and simple. However, some errors do occur in the modeled results. Here, we discuss the sources of error from the following four aspects:
Soil moisture has a certain effect on the G0/Rn ratio. The existing studies confirmed that the variability in G0/Rn on hourly timescales is partly caused by variations in soil moisture [50,51,52,53]. This dependence arises from the competing effects of changing evaporation rates and soil thermal conductivity as the soil dries [54]. The drier the soil, the larger the G0/Rn [24]. In addition, a significant difference exists in soil moisture during a freeze-thaw cycle, with the smallest soil moisture in the CF stage and the largest in the CT stage (Figure 9). However, none of these schemes considered the effects of soil moisture directly, which will result in the production of some errors. Although Ts is sensitive to soil moisture [24], it cannot completely replace soil moisture. From this point of view, the schemes considering Ts also have more advantages.
The phase shift between G0 and Rn is also one of the sources of errors in all schemes. Some studies have shown that a phase shift exists between G0 and Rn [23,24,54,55,56]. Ground surface soil heat flux and net radiation flux do not have the same diurnal variation shape. The soil heat flux peak values are usually later than the net radiation flux peak values, which was not taken into account in these parameterizations. In the present study, taking the measured data of TGL station as an example, no matter which stage of the freeze-thaw process was analyzed, an obvious phase shift occurred between G0 and Rn. That is, the peak value of diurnal variation in G0 always arrived later than the peak value of diurnal variation in Rn (Figure 10). Relevant studies have also been conducted on the TP, which concluded that the scheme considering the phase shift between G0 and Rn does have a lower estimated error than before in the CT stage [23].
These remote sensing-based models are all based on G0/Rn, so when the G0 and Rn directions are opposite, the simulation results of each scheme are not very good. Table 6 shows that when G0 has an opposite trend to that of Rn, the vegetation index-based scheme basically cannot correctly capture the direction of G0. In contrast, the schemes that are based on Ts, α, and VI can reflect the direction of part of G0 correctly and were used in the three stages of the freeze-thaw cycle. Here, G0 manifests the energy exchange between the active layer and the atmosphere while it affects the energy budget of the active layer and permafrost, so its direction is crucial for the active layer thickness and permafrost [23]. When the direction of G0 is positive (the downward direction of G0 is positive), this finding indicates that the active layer absorbs heat from the atmosphere [56]. Over time, soil temperature will rise, which will increase the thickness of active layer and promote the degradation of permafrost. Vice versa, the active layer releases heat into the atmosphere [56], and the decrease of soil temperature is beneficial to the preservation and development of permafrost. Considering the correctness of the G0 direction, although all schemes cannot fully capture the direction of G0, a scheme based on Ts, α, and VI is better than a scheme based on vegetation index alone.
Remote sensing data will result in certain errors as presented in Table 5. Although the table shows the uncertainty of each scheme, it also shows the influence of an increase or decrease in the accuracy of remotely sensed land surface temperature, surface albedo, and vegetation indices on the simulated G0; therefore, the accuracy of remotely sensed products has a certain effect on the simulation results of the main schemes.

6. Conclusions

Based on the observed TP and vegetation index data of 12 sites obtained from remote sensing products, we modified five remote sensing-based models to estimate the ground surface soil heat flux on the Tibetan Plateau during the freeze-thaw process and obtained 10 schemes (five original schemes and five modified schemes). We further analyzed RMSE values of 10 schemes, their sensitivity to land surface parameters, and the sources of their errors. The following conclusions are drawn.
(1)
The RMSE of each scheme was significantly different during the freeze-thaw cycle on the TP; meanwhile, the RMSE values of the three stages can be roughly presented as a whole: CF < DFT < CT. The MBE of the CT stage, whether overestimated or underestimated, was less than that of the other two stages, while the MBE values of the other two stages were close. Overall, RMSE values of the second group of schemes (SEBAL, Ma, SEBALadj, and Maadj) were smaller than that of the first group of schemes (Choudhury, Clawson, SEBS, Choudhuryadj, Clawsonadj, and SEBSadj). The MBE values tell us the G0 values simulated by the first group of schemes were obviously overestimated, and those of the second group of schemes are weakly underestimated.
(2)
In the absence of measured data, the Maadj scheme can be considered for estimating G0 on the TP; its RMSE and MBE were the least among all the schemes.
(3)
AVaccuracy of the second group of schemes was less and their simulated results were relatively more stable than those of the first group of schemes during the freeze-thaw process on the TP.
(4)
We discussed four possible reasons for the errors of the main schemes. Soil moisture, the phase difference between G0 and Rn, whether each main scheme can correctly capture the propagation direction of G0, and the accuracy of remote sensing data resulted in errors for the scheme analog results.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, C.Y.; Y.Z. Funding acquisition, T.W. Methodology, C.Y.; T.W.; J.Y. Resources, T.W. Software, Y.Z. Supervision, T.W.; J.Y.; R.L.; C.X.; G.H.; X.Z.; J.N.; J.H.; X.L.; W.M.; A.W. Validation, C.Y. Visualization, C.Y. Writing—original draft, C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences: Grant No.XDA20030201; National Natural Science Foundation of China: 41690142; 41771076; 41671070; 41961144021.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No.XDA20030201) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (41690142; 41771076; 41961144021; 41671070). The observation data were provided by Cryosphere Research Station on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau of Chinese Academy of Sciences and National Meteorological Information Center (http://tipex.data.cma.cn/tipex). The remote sensing data were provided by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (MODIS Data, https://ladsweb.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/search/).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. (Adjustments to G0 Parameterization Schemes)

The other coefficients aside from the land surface parameters (LAI, NDVI, MSAVI, fc, Ts, α ¯ , α, and Rn) of the five schemes varied depending on the study area being analyzed. Before applying these schemes, these coefficients must be re-determined based on the measured data in a specific study area. The adjustment processes of the five models (Choudhury, Clawson, SEBAL, Ma, and SEBS) in the TP are as follows in detail using the data from eight stations (AYKMS, Amdo, Binggou, BGGRASS, Jiali, Linzhou, Shiquanhe, and XDTMS).
(1)
Maadj/SEBALadj
The coefficients of the G0 parameterization of the Ma scheme needed to be re-determined based on the measured data of observation stations on the TP; the unified form can be written as Equation (A1):
G 0 / R n = T s α ( a α ¯ 2 + b α ¯ + c ) ( 1 d M S A V I e ) .
In Equation (A1), G0, Rn, T s ,   α ,   α ¯   , and MSAVI are all known, while the coefficients a, b, c, d, and e of Equation (A1) can be determined using the software Origin 8.5 by the data from the eight sites listed above (more than 38,000 samples). In the non-linear fitting module of Origin 8.5, the form of a fitting formula (A1) is defined. Then the data (G0, Rn, T s ,   α ,   α ¯   , and MSAVI) of eight stations was imported into the fitting formula, and the fit coefficient (a, b, c, d, and e, show as Table A1) in the formula can be obtained. Therefore, Equation (A1), called the scheme Maadj, is modified to (R2 = 0.45):
G 0 / R n = T s α ( 0.0084 α ¯ 2 + 0.0018 α ¯ + 0.00116 ) ( 1 0.96 N D V I 4 ) .
Table A1. Parameters in Equation (A1) obtained by the software Origin 8.5.
Table A1. Parameters in Equation (A1) obtained by the software Origin 8.5.
ParametersabcdeR2N
Value0.00840.00180.001160.9640.4538,368
Note: R2, the coefficient of determination; N, the number of samples.
Similarly, the adjusted SEBALadj scheme was determined (R2 = 0.45, N = 38,368):
G 0 / R n = T s α ( 0.0062 α ¯ 2 + 0.00258 α ¯ + 0.00112 ) ( 1 0.90 N D V I 4 ) .  
(2)
Clawsonadj/Choudhuryadj
The unified form of the Clawson scheme can be written as Equation (A4):
G 0 / R n = a e b N D V I .
NDVI of bare soil should be close to 0 in theory and is not easy to change. However, due to many factors, it will change with space and tends to vary between −0.1 and 0.2 [35]. Therefore, this article considers the area with NDVI less than 0.2 as bare soil. The coefficients a and b in Equation (A4) are 0.238 and 0.78, respectively, from Figure A1a, and the adjusted form of the scheme Clawson has the following form (it is named the Clawsonadj scheme):
G 0 / R n = 0.238 e 0.78 N D V I .  
Similarly, the adjusted scheme Choudhuryadj was determined (Figure A1b):
G 0 / R n = 0.267 e 0.27 L A I
Figure A1. Adjustment scatter plot for the adjusted schemes Clawsonadj (a) and Choudhuryadj (b). (R, the correlation coefficient; N, the number of samples.).
Figure A1. Adjustment scatter plot for the adjusted schemes Clawsonadj (a) and Choudhuryadj (b). (R, the correlation coefficient; N, the number of samples.).
Remotesensing 12 00501 g0a1
(3)
SEBSadj
As there is no site with full vegetation coverage, only the ratio Γs of G0 to Rn in the SEBS scheme can be adjusted in this study. It can be 0.20 in bare soil on the TP (Figure A2). Additionally, this ratio (0.20) was close to 0.25 when obtained by Yang et al. [23]; therefore, the adjusted form of SEBSadj of the SEBS scheme can be expressed as Equation (A7):
G 0 = R n [ 0.20 ( 1 f c ) + 0.05 f c ] .
Figure A2. Adjustment scatter plot for the ratio Γs of ground surface soil heat flux G0 to net radiation Rn in bare soil on the TP (R, the correlation coefficient; N, the number of samples.).
Figure A2. Adjustment scatter plot for the ratio Γs of ground surface soil heat flux G0 to net radiation Rn in bare soil on the TP (R, the correlation coefficient; N, the number of samples.).
Remotesensing 12 00501 g0a2

References

  1. Ma, W.; Ma, Y.; Hu, Z.; Li, M.; Sun, F.; Gu, L.; Wang, J.; Qian, Z. The contrast between the radiation budget plus seasonal variation and remote sensing over the northern Tibetan Plateau. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2005, 19, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  2. Xiao, Y.; Zhao, L.; Li, R.; Yao, J. Seasonal variation characteristics of surface energy budget components in permafrost regions of northern Tibetan Plateau. J. Glaciol. Geocryol. 2011, 33, 1033–1039. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ye, D.; Gao, Y. Meteorology of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau; Science press: Beijing, China, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wu, G. Recent progress in the study of the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau climate dynamics in China. Quat. Sci. 2004, 24, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  5. Shan, C.H.; Bo, S.Z. Simulation of Land-Atmosphere Exchange Processes at Amdo and Gaize Stations over Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Plateau Meteorol. 2005, 24, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ma, Y.M.; Yao, T.D.; Wang, J.M. Experimental Study of Energy and Water Cycle in Tibetan Plateau—The Progress Introduction on the Study of GAME/Tibet and CAMP/Tibet. Plateau Meteorol. 2006, 25, 344–351. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yang, K.; Wang, J. A temperature prediction-correction method for estimating surface soil heat flux from soil temperature and moisture data. Sci. China Ser. D 2008, 51, 721–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, S.X.; Nan, Z.; Lin, Z. Impact of Soil Freezing and Thawing Process on Thermal Exchange between Atmosphere and Ground Surface. J. Glaciol. Geocryol. 2002, 24, 506–511. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yang, M.X.; Yao, T.; Hirose, N.; Fujii, H. Diurnal freezing-thawing cycle of topsoil in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2006, 51, 1974–1976. [Google Scholar]
  10. Guo, D.L.; Xue, Y.M.; Min, L.; Peng, Q. Analysis on Simulation of Characteristic of Land Surface Energy Flux in Seasonal Frozen Soil Region of Central Tibetan Plateau. Plateau Meteorol. 2009, 28, 978–987. [Google Scholar]
  11. William, P.J.; Smith, M.W. The Frozen Earth: Fundamentals of Geocryology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  12. Xu, Z.W.; Liu, S.M.; Xu, T.R.; Ding, C. The observation and calculation method of soil heat flux and its impact on the energy balance closure. Adv. Earth Sci. 2013, 28, 875–889. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. SEBAL-based sensible and latent heat fluxes in the irrigated Gediz Basin, Turkey. J Hydrol. 2000, 229, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, J.M.; Ma, Y.M.; Menenti, M.; Bastiaanssen, W.; Mitsuta, Y. The scaling-up of processes in the heterogeneous landscape of HEIFE with the aid of satellite remote sensing. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 1995, 73, 1235–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Jackson, R.D.; Moran, M.S.; Gay, L.W.; Raymond, L.H. Evaluating Evaporation from Field Crops Using Airborne Radiometry and Ground-Based Meteorological Data. Irrig. Sci. 1987, 8, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Moran, M.S.; Jackson, R.D.; Raymond, L.H.; Gay, L.W.; Slater, P.N. Mapping surface energy balance components by combining Landsat thermatic mapper and ground-based meteorological data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1989, 30, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Choudhury, B.J.; Bjso, S.B.; Rejinato, R.J. Analysis of an empirical model for soil heat flux under a growing wheat crop for estimating evaporation by an infrared-temperature based energy balance equation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1987, 39, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Su, Z. The Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) for estimation of turbulent heat fluxes. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2002, 6, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ma, Y.M.; Ishikawa, H.; Tsukamoto, O.; Menenti, M.; Su, Z.B.; Yao, T.D.; Koike, T.; Yasunari, T. Regionalization of surface fluxes over heterogeneous landscape of the Tibetan Plateau by using satellite remote sensing data. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 2003, 81, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ma, Y.M.; Wang, J.M.; Huang, R.H.; Wei, G.; Menenti, M.; Su, Z.B.; Hu, Z.Y.; Gao, F.; Wen, J. Remote sensing parameterization of land surface heat fluxes over arid and semi-arid areas. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2003, 20, 530–539. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ma, Y.M.; Ma, W.Q.; Li, M.S.; Sun, F.L.; Wang, J.M. Remote Sensing Parameterization of Land Surface Heat Fluxes over the Middle Reaches of the Heihe River. J. Desert Res. 2004, 24, 392–399. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ma, Y.M.; Xue, D.Y.; Ma, W.Q.; Li, M.S.; Wang, J.M.; Wen, J.; Sun, F.L. Satellite Remote Sensing Parameterization of Regional Land Surface Heat Fluxes over Heterogeneous Surface of Arid and Semi-Arid Areas. Plateau Meteorol. 2004, 23, 139–146. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cheng, Y.; Wu, T.; Wang, J.; Yao, J.; Li, R.; Zhao, L.; Xie, C.; Zhu, X.; Ni, J.; Hao, J. Estimating Surface Soil Heat Flux in Permafrost Regions Using Remote Sensing-Based Models on the Northern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau under Clear-Sky Conditions. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 416. [Google Scholar]
  24. Min, W. Analysis of adaptabilities of remote sensing models for heat flux over hilly land. Sci. Meteorol. Sin. 2009, 29, 386–389. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cheng, W.M.; Zhao, S.M.; Zhou, C.H.; Chen, X. Simulation of the Decadal Permafrost Distribution on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (China) over the Past 50 Years. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 2012, 23, 292–300. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhu, Z.K.; Hu, Z.Y.; Ma, Y.M.; Li, M.S.; Sun, F.L. Net ecosystem carbon dioxide exchange in alpine meadow of Nagchu region over Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Plateau Meteorol. 2015, 34, 1217–1223. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yang, L.W.; Gao, X.Q.; Hui, X.Y.; Gao, N.; Zhou, Y.; Hou, X.H. Study on turbulence characteristics in the atmospheric surface layer over Nyainrong grassland in central Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Plateau Meteorol. 2017, 36, 875–885. [Google Scholar]
  28. Duan, L.J.; Duan, A.M.; Hu, W.T.; Gong, Y.F. Low frequency oscillation of precipitation and daily variation characteristic of air–land process at Shiquanhe station and Linzhi station in Tibetan Plateau in the summer of 2014. Chin. J. Atmos. Sci. 2017, 41, 767–783. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yu, W.P.; Ma, M.G.; Wang, X.F.; Geng, L.Y.; Tan, J.L.; Shi, J.A. Evaluation of MODIS LST Products Using Longwave Radiation Ground Measurements in the Northern Arid Region of China. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 11494–11517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Duan, S.B.; Li, Z.L.; Leng, P. A framework for the retrieval of all-weather land surface temperature at a high spatial resolution from polar-orbiting thermal infrared and passive microwave data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 195, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, S.M.; Xu, Z.W.; Wang, W.Z.; Jia, Z.Z.; Zhu, M.J.; Bai, J.; Wang, J.M. A comparison of eddy-covariance and large aperture scintillometer measurements with respect to the energy balance closure problem. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1291–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Wang, B.B.; Ma, Y.M.; Ma, W.Q. Estimation of land surface temperature retrieved from EOS/MODIS in Naqu area over Tibetan Plateau. J. Remote Sens. 2012, 16, 1289–1309. [Google Scholar]
  33. Myneni, R.; Knyazikhin, Y.; Park, T. MCD15A2H MODIS/Terra+Aqua Leaf Area Index/FPAR 8-day L4 Global 500m SIN Grid V006. 2015. Available online: http://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD15A2H.006 (accessed on 1 February 2020).
  34. Qi, J.; Chehbouni, A.; Huete, A.R.; Kerr, Y.H.; Sorooshian, S. A Modified Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index. Remote Sens. Environ. 1994, 48, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carlson, T.N.; Ripley, D.A. On the relation between NDVI, fractional vegetation cover, and leaf area index. Remote Sens. Environ. 1997, 62, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. He, J. Development of Surface Meteorological Dataset of Chinawith High Temporal and Spatial Resolution. Master’s Thesis, Inst. of Tibetan Plateau Res., Chin. Acad. of Sci., Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang, K.; He, J.; Tang, W.J.; Qin, J.; Cheng, C.C.K. On downward shortwave and longwave radiations over high altitude regions: Observation and modeling in the Tibetan Plateau. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2010, 150, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhong, L.; Ma, Y.M.; Hu, Z.Y.; Fu, Y.F.; Hu, Y.Y.; Wang, X.; Cheng, M.L.; Ge, N. Estimation of hourly land surface heat fluxes over the Tibetan Plateau by the combined use of geostationary and polar-orbiting satellites. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2019, 19, 5529–5541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Yao, J.M.; Zhao, L.; Gu, L.L.; Qiao, Y.P.; Jiao, K.Q. The surface energy budget in the permafrost region of the Tibetan Plateau. Atmos. Res. 2011, 102, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tanaka, K.; Tamagawa, I.; Ishikawa, H.; Ma, Y.M.; Hu, Z.Y. Surface energy budget and closure of the eastern Tibetan Plateau during the GAME-Tibet IOP 1998. J. Hydrol. 2003, 283, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Osterkamp, T.E. Freezing and Thawing of Soils and Permafrost Containing Unfrozen Water or Brine. Water Resour. Res. 1987, 23, 2279–2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jackson, R.D.; Pinter, P.J.; Reginato, R.J. Net-Radiation Calculated from Remote Multispectral and Ground Station Meteorological Data. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1985, 35, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Park, H.; Iijima, Y.; Yabuki, H.; Ohta, T.; Walsh, J.; Kodama, Y.; Ohata, T. The application of a coupled hydrological and biogeochemical model (CHANGE) for modeling of energy, water, and CO2 exchanges over a larch forest in eastern Siberia. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 2011, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Amaty, P.M.; Ma, Y.M.; Han, C.B.; Wang, B.B.; Devkota, L.P. Recent trends (2003–2013) of land surface heat fluxes on the southern side of the central Himalayas, Nepal. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2015, 120, 11957–11970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Liang, S.L. Narrowband to broadband conversions of land surface albedo I Algorithms. Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 76, 213–238. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wan, Z.M.; Li, Z.L. A physics-based algorithm for retrieving land-surface emissivity and temperature from EOS/MODIS data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1997, 35, 980–996. [Google Scholar]
  47. Liang, S.L.; Shuey, C.J.; Russ, A.L.; Fang, H.L.; Chen, M.Z.; Walthall, C.L.; Daughtry, C.S.T.; Hunt, R. Narrowband to broadband conversions of land surface albedo: II. Validation. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 84, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Qin, Z.L.; Li, W.J.; Xu, B.; Chen, Z.X.; Liu, J. The estimation of land surface emissivity for Landsat TM6. Remote Sens. Land Resour. 2011, 16, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ma, Y.M.; Tsukamoto, O.; Ishikawa, H.; Su, Z.B.; Menenti, M.; Wang, J.M.; Wen, J. Determination of regional land surface heat flux densities over heterogeneous landscape of HEIFE integrating satellite remote sensing with field observations. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 2002, 80, 485–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Idso, S.B.; Aase, J.K.; Jackson, R.D. Net radiation–soil heat flux relations as influenced by soil water content variations. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 1975, 9, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fuchs, M.; Hadas, A. The heat flux density in a nonhomogeneous bare loessial soil. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 1972, 3, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Clothier, B.E.; Clawson, K.L.; Pinter, P.J.; Moran, M.S.; Reginato, R.J.; Jackson, R.D. Estimation of Soil Heat-Flux from Net-Radiation during the Growth of Alfalfa. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1986, 37, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ogee, J.; Lamaud, E.; Brunet, Y.; Berbigier, P.; Bonnefond, J.M. A long-term study of soil heat flux under a forest canopy. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2001, 106, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Santanello, J.A.; Friedl, M.A. Diurnal covariation in soil heat flux and net radiation. J. Appl. Meteorol. 2003, 42, 851–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Colaizzi, P.D.; Kustas, W.P.; Anderson, M.C.; Agam, N.; Tolk, J.A.; Evett, S.R.; Howell, T.A.; Gowda, P.H.; O’Shaughnessy, S.A. Two-source energy balance model estimates of evapotranspiration using component and composite surface temperatures. Adv. Water Resour. 2012, 50, 134–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zhao, L.; Sheng, Y.; Wu, T.H.; Li, R.; Xie, C.W.; Wu, J.C.; Li, J.; Yao, J.M.; Wu, X.D.; Hu, G.J.; et al. Permafrost and Its changes on Qinghai-Tibet Plateau; Science press: Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Distribution of study sites on the Tibetan Plateau (source of permafrost distribution data: [25]) For abbreviations of site names and further details see Table 1.
Figure 1. Distribution of study sites on the Tibetan Plateau (source of permafrost distribution data: [25]) For abbreviations of site names and further details see Table 1.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g001
Figure 2. Flow chart used for estimating the ground surface soil heat flux (G0) on the Tibetan Plateau by combining Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS data, including MOD15A2H, MOD13Q1, MOD09CMG, and MODLT1D) and meteorological forcing data. Note: T5, soil temperature at a depth of 5 cm; SM5, 5 cm-depth soil moisture; G10, soil heat flux at a depth of 10 cm; Ts, land surface temperature; Rn, net radiation; Albedo, land surface albedo; LAI, leaf area index; fc, vegetation coverage; NDVI, normalized difference vegetation index; MSAVI, modified soil adjusted vegetation index; LSE, land surface emissivity; SRad, downward shortwave radiation; LRad, downward longwave radiation; G0, ground surface soil heat flux.
Figure 2. Flow chart used for estimating the ground surface soil heat flux (G0) on the Tibetan Plateau by combining Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS data, including MOD15A2H, MOD13Q1, MOD09CMG, and MODLT1D) and meteorological forcing data. Note: T5, soil temperature at a depth of 5 cm; SM5, 5 cm-depth soil moisture; G10, soil heat flux at a depth of 10 cm; Ts, land surface temperature; Rn, net radiation; Albedo, land surface albedo; LAI, leaf area index; fc, vegetation coverage; NDVI, normalized difference vegetation index; MSAVI, modified soil adjusted vegetation index; LSE, land surface emissivity; SRad, downward shortwave radiation; LRad, downward longwave radiation; G0, ground surface soil heat flux.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g002
Figure 3. Root mean square error (RMSE) (a) and mean bias error (MBE) (b) of each scheme at different stages (CF, complete freezing; DFT, daily freeze-thaw cycle; CT, complete thawing) of the freeze-thaw cycle. The table in the upper right corner in Figure 3b corresponds to the number of samples in the three stages.
Figure 3. Root mean square error (RMSE) (a) and mean bias error (MBE) (b) of each scheme at different stages (CF, complete freezing; DFT, daily freeze-thaw cycle; CT, complete thawing) of the freeze-thaw cycle. The table in the upper right corner in Figure 3b corresponds to the number of samples in the three stages.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g003
Figure 4. Fractions of valid moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer land surface temperature data (Ts) on the Tibetan Plateau at 10:30 local time in July 2014, October 2014, January 2015, and April 2015 during the daytime.
Figure 4. Fractions of valid moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer land surface temperature data (Ts) on the Tibetan Plateau at 10:30 local time in July 2014, October 2014, January 2015, and April 2015 during the daytime.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g004
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of land surface temperature Ts at 10:30 local time on July 24 (a) and October 25 (b) in 2014, and January 21 (c) and April 26 (d) in 2015. Note: Ts stands for land surface temperature. The unit is kelvin.
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of land surface temperature Ts at 10:30 local time on July 24 (a) and October 25 (b) in 2014, and January 21 (c) and April 26 (d) in 2015. Note: Ts stands for land surface temperature. The unit is kelvin.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g005
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of net radiation Rn at 10:30 local time on July 24 (a) and October 25 (b) in 2014, and January 21 (c) and April 26 (d) in 2015. Note: Rn stands for net radiation. The unit is W/m−2.
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of net radiation Rn at 10:30 local time on July 24 (a) and October 25 (b) in 2014, and January 21 (c) and April 26 (d) in 2015. Note: Rn stands for net radiation. The unit is W/m−2.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g006
Figure 7. Spatial distribution of ground surface soil heat flux G0 at 10:30 local time on July 24 (a) and October 25 (b) in 2014, and January 21 (c) and April 26 (d) in 2015. Note: G0 stands for ground surface soil heat flux. The unit is W/m−2.
Figure 7. Spatial distribution of ground surface soil heat flux G0 at 10:30 local time on July 24 (a) and October 25 (b) in 2014, and January 21 (c) and April 26 (d) in 2015. Note: G0 stands for ground surface soil heat flux. The unit is W/m−2.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g007
Figure 8. Validation of estimated net radiation (a) and ground surface soil heat flux (b) with in-situ measurements (The gray numbers (1–11) in Figure 8a,b represent the sites and dates corresponding to the red circles, shown in the table (c)). Note: RMSE, root mean square error; MBE, mean bias error; R2, the coefficient of determination.
Figure 8. Validation of estimated net radiation (a) and ground surface soil heat flux (b) with in-situ measurements (The gray numbers (1–11) in Figure 8a,b represent the sites and dates corresponding to the red circles, shown in the table (c)). Note: RMSE, root mean square error; MBE, mean bias error; R2, the coefficient of determination.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g008
Figure 9. Changes of volumetric moisture content of unfrozen water in soil at 0.05 m depth during a freeze-thaw cycle at sites (a) Nierong, (b) TGLMS, (c) Naqu, and (d) Biru (CF, complete freezing; DFT, daily freeze-thaw cycle; CT, complete thawing).
Figure 9. Changes of volumetric moisture content of unfrozen water in soil at 0.05 m depth during a freeze-thaw cycle at sites (a) Nierong, (b) TGLMS, (c) Naqu, and (d) Biru (CF, complete freezing; DFT, daily freeze-thaw cycle; CT, complete thawing).
Remotesensing 12 00501 g009
Figure 10. Schematic diagram of the phase shift between ground surface soil heat flux (G0) and net radiation (Rn) at site TGLMS during (a) complete freezing (CF), (b) complete thawing (CT), and (c) the daily freeze-thaw cycle (DFT) of a freeze-thaw process.
Figure 10. Schematic diagram of the phase shift between ground surface soil heat flux (G0) and net radiation (Rn) at site TGLMS during (a) complete freezing (CF), (b) complete thawing (CT), and (c) the daily freeze-thaw cycle (DFT) of a freeze-thaw process.
Remotesensing 12 00501 g010
Table 1. Observational instruments and observation parameters.
Table 1. Observational instruments and observation parameters.
AWSLocation
(lon/lat/alt)
Ground Surface ConditionObservation Period
(Beijing Time:
dd.mm.yyyy)
Observation ItemsDepth/Height
AYKMS88°48′E
37°32′N
4300 m
Desert steppe12.06.2014–24.02.2015DSR/USR2 m
DLR/ULR2 m
G5, 10, 20 cm
SM5, 10, 20, 40 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40 cm
Ts1.5 m
prec1.5 m
TGLMS91°56′E
33°04′N
5100 m
Alpine meadow01.01–31.12.2015DSR/USR2 m
DLR/ULR2 m
G5, 10, 20 cm
SM35, 70, 105, 140, 175, 210, 245, 280, 300 cm
ST2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 70, 90, 105, 140, 175, 210, 245, 280, 300 cm
Ts1.5 m
prec1.5 m
XDTMS94°08′E
35°43′N
4538 m
Alpine steppe01.01.2015–31.12.2016DSR/USR2 m
DLR/ULR2 m
G5, 10, 20 cm
SM35, 70, 105, 140, 175, 210, 245, 280, 300 cm
ST2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 70, 90, 105, 140, 175, 210, 245, 280, 300 cm
Ts1.5 m
prec1.5 m
Binggou100°13.31′E
38°4.05′N
3449.4 m
Alpine meadow16.03–17.10.2008,
01.01–31.07.2009
DSR/USR1.5 m
DLR/ULR1.5 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 120 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 120 cm
G5, 15 cm
prec4.11 m
Amdo91°37.2′E
32°14.4′N
4695 m
Alpine steppe01.07.2014–30.09.2015DSR/USR1.5 m
DLR/ULR1.5 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 cm
G5, 10 cm
prec1.5 m
BGGRASS90°1.68′E
31°25.07′N
4700 m
Alpine steppe15.07.2014–23.09.2015DSR/USR2 m
DLR/ULR2 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 100 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 100 cm
G5, 10 cm
prec1.5 m
Biru93°9.5′E
31°39.8′N
4408 m
Alpine steppe14.09.2014–02.10.2015DSR/USR2 m
DLR/ULR2 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 100 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 100 cm
G5, 10 cm
prec1.5 m
Jiali93°13.95′E
30°38.456′N
4509 m
Alpine meadow17.09.2014–28.06.2015,
06.09.2015–11.10.2015
DSR/USR2 m
DLR/ULR2 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 100 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 100 cm
G5, 10 cm
prec1.5 m
Naqu91°54′E
31°22.2′N
4509 m
Alpine steppe01.07–10.09.2014,
16.09–07.12.2014,
28.01–01.08.2015,
01.09–30.09.2015
DSR/USR1.5 m
DLR/ULR1.5 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 cm
G5, 10 cm
prec1.5 m
Nierong92°18.27′E
32°7.33′N
4607 m
Alpine meadow11.07.2014–21.10.2015DSR/USR1.5 m
DLR/ULR1.5 m
SM5, 10, 20, 50, 100 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 50, 100 cm
G5, 10 cm
prec1 m
Linzhou91°16.25′E
29°53.93′N
3756 m
Alpine desert19.09.2015–09.03.2016DSR/USR1.5 m
DLR/ULR1.5 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 80 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 80 cm
G8 cm
Ts1.5 m
prec1.5 m
Shiquanhe80°6′E
32°29.4′N
4278.6 m
Alpine desert16.09.2014–30.09.2015DSR/USR2 m
DLR/ULR2 m
SM5, 10, 20, 40, 80 cm
ST5, 10, 20, 40, 80 cm
G5, 10, 20, 40, 80 cm
Ts1.5 m
prec1.5 m
NOTE: DSR, USR, DLR, and URL represent downward and upward shortwave radiation as well as downward and upward longwave radiation, respectively; Ts stands for land surface temperature; Rn represents net radiation; G is the soil heat flux; SM and ST stand for soil moisture and temperature, respectively; Prec is the precipitation.
Table 2. Specifications of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) products used in the study.
Table 2. Specifications of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) products used in the study.
Product NameDescriptionTime Range
(Beijing Time:
dd.mm.yyyy)
Time GranularitySpatial Resolution
MOD13Q1Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), enhanced vegetation index (EVI)01.01.2008–31.12.2009, 01.01.2014–31.12.201616 day250 m
MCD15A2HFraction of photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR), leaf area index (LAI)8 day500 m
MODLT1DDaytime/Nighttime Land Surface Temperature01.07–31.07.2014, 01.10–31.10.2014, 01.01–31.01.2015, 01.04–30.04.2015Daily1000 m
MOD09CMG Surface reflectance band 1–724.07.2014, 25.10.2014, 21.01.2015, 26.04.2015Daily5600 m
CMFD-SRadDownwelling shortwave radiation3 h10,000 m
CMFD-LRadDownwelling longwave radiation3 h10,000 m
Note: MOD, Terra satellite’s MODIS data; MCD, combined data from all the acquisitions of both MODIS sensors located on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.
Table 3. The original and adjusted versions of remote sensing-based models estimating G0/Rn.
Table 3. The original and adjusted versions of remote sensing-based models estimating G0/Rn.
Model NameMathematical FormReferences
SEBAL G 0 / R n = T s α ( 0.0062 α ¯ 2 + 0.0028 α ¯ ) ( 1 0.978 N D V I 4 ) [13]
SEBALadj G 0 / R n = T s α ( 0.006 α ¯ 2 + 0.00258 α ¯ + 0.00112 ) ( 1 0.90 N D V I 4 ) This study
Ma G 0 / R n = T s α ( 0.0087 α ¯ 2 + 0.0045 α ¯ + 0.00029 ) ( 1 0.964 M S A V I 4 ) [19]
Maadj G 0 / R n = T s α ( 0.0084 α ¯ 2 + 0.0018 α ¯ + 0.00116 ) ( 1 0.96 M S A V I 4 ) This study
Choudhury G 0 / R n = 0.4 e 0.5 L A I [17]
Choudhuryadj G 0 / R n = 0.267 e 0.27 L A I This study
Clawson G 0 / R n = 0.583 e 2.13 N D V I [42]
Clawsonadj G 0 / R n = 0.238 e 0.78 N D V I This study
SEBS G 0 / R n = [ 0.315 ( 1 f c ) + 0.05 f c ] [18]
SEBSadj G 0 / R n = [ 0.20 ( 1 f c ) + 0.05 f c ] This study
Note: G0, ground surface soil heat flux; Rn, net radiation; Ts, land surface temperature; α, instantaneous land surface albedo; α ¯ , daily mean land surface albedo; LAI, leaf area index; fc, vegetation coverage; NDVI, normalized difference vegetation index; MSAVI, modified soil adjusted vegetation index.
Table 4. VRaccuracy, the ultimate sensitivity coefficient, of the scheme Choudhury.
Table 4. VRaccuracy, the ultimate sensitivity coefficient, of the scheme Choudhury.
ChoudhuryCTDFTCF
+α2.19 2.453.15
α2.19 2.453.15
+α, +LAI1.25 1.081.16
+α, −LAI4.89 5.066.04
α, +LAI5.25 5.446.51
α, −LAI1.25 1.071.11
+LAI3.07 2.983.32
LAI2.92 2.843.16
+Ts3.16 2.021.81
+Ts, +α5.34 4.474.96
+Ts, −α1.80 1.541.96
+Ts, +α, +LAI3.27 2.372.35
+Ts, +α, −LAI7.34 6.547.50
+Ts, −α, +LAI4.33 4.455.30
+Ts, −α, −LAI3.21 1.951.66
+Ts, +LAI2.86 2.432.48
+Ts, −LAI5.27 4.224.52
Ts3.12 2.001.79
Ts, +α1.79 1.541.96
Ts, −α5.31 4.454.94
Ts, +α, +LAI3.38 2.011.68
Ts, +α, −LAI4.05 4.174.96
Ts, −α, +LAI7.96 7.078.12
Ts, −α, −LAI2.84 2.052.02
Ts, +LAI5.66 4.514.82
Ts, −LAI2.68 2.322.39
MAX7.967.078.12
N1124951715676
Note: The sign “+” (“−”) before Ts, α, or LAI represents that the parameter is increased (decreased) by 1 K, 0.02, or 0.1, respectively. N represents the number of samples. CF, DFT, and CT represent complete freezing stage, daily freeze-thaw cycle stage, and complete thawing stage of a freeze-thaw cycle, respectively.
Table 5. VRaccuracy, the ultimate sensitivity coefficient, of these schemes.
Table 5. VRaccuracy, the ultimate sensitivity coefficient, of these schemes.
SchemeCTDFTCF
Choudhury7.96 7.07 8.12
Choudhuryadj3.60 3.70 4.28
Clawson7.54 14.21 17.95
Clawsonadj4.87 13.20 6.23
SEBS8.89 22.52 29.57
SEBSadj2.52 3.53 4.28
SEBAL0.56 0.63 1.05
SEBALadj1.61 1.47 1.69
Ma0.88 1.11 1.68
Maadj1.45 1.46 1.72
Note: CF, complete freezing; DFT, daily freeze-thaw cycle; CT, complete thawing.
Table 6. Simulation effect of each scheme on the direction of ground surface soil heat flux (G0) when G0 is the opposite direction from net radiation (Rn).
Table 6. Simulation effect of each scheme on the direction of ground surface soil heat flux (G0) when G0 is the opposite direction from net radiation (Rn).
SchemeCTDFTCF
G0 is the opposite direction from Rn510221172270
Under the premise that G0 is opposite to Rn, the simulated G0 direction is consistent with the “measured” G0 Choudhury000
Choudhuryadj
Clawson
Clawsonadj
SEBS
SEBSadj
SEBAL85311272051
SEBALadj
Ma
Maadj
Note: The numbers in the table represent the number of samples; CF, DFT, and CT represent complete freezing stage, daily freeze-thaw cycle stage, and complete thawing stage of a freeze-thaw cycle, respectively.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, C.; Wu, T.; Yao, J.; Li, R.; Xie, C.; Hu, G.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ni, J.; Hao, J.; et al. An Assessment of Using Remote Sensing-based Models to Estimate Ground Surface Soil Heat Flux on the Tibetan Plateau during the Freeze-thaw Process. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030501

AMA Style

Yang C, Wu T, Yao J, Li R, Xie C, Hu G, Zhu X, Zhang Y, Ni J, Hao J, et al. An Assessment of Using Remote Sensing-based Models to Estimate Ground Surface Soil Heat Flux on the Tibetan Plateau during the Freeze-thaw Process. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(3):501. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030501

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Cheng, Tonghua Wu, Jimin Yao, Ren Li, Changwei Xie, Guojie Hu, Xiaofan Zhu, Yinghui Zhang, Jie Ni, Junming Hao, and et al. 2020. "An Assessment of Using Remote Sensing-based Models to Estimate Ground Surface Soil Heat Flux on the Tibetan Plateau during the Freeze-thaw Process" Remote Sensing 12, no. 3: 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030501

APA Style

Yang, C., Wu, T., Yao, J., Li, R., Xie, C., Hu, G., Zhu, X., Zhang, Y., Ni, J., Hao, J., Li, X., Ma, W., & Wen, A. (2020). An Assessment of Using Remote Sensing-based Models to Estimate Ground Surface Soil Heat Flux on the Tibetan Plateau during the Freeze-thaw Process. Remote Sensing, 12(3), 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030501

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop