Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.256 IF 4.256
  • IF 5-year value: 4.819 IF 5-year 4.819
  • CiteScore value: 4.10 CiteScore 4.10
  • SNIP value: 1.412 SNIP 1.412
  • SJR value: 2.023 SJR 2.023
  • IPP value: 3.97 IPP 3.97
  • h5-index value: 58 h5-index 58
  • Scimago H index value: 99 Scimago H index 99
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1165-1188, 2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1165-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
27 Mar 2014
Intercomparison of four remote-sensing-based energy balance methods to retrieve surface evapotranspiration and water stress of irrigated fields in semi-arid climate
J. Chirouze1, G. Boulet1, L. Jarlan1, R. Fieuzal1, J. C. Rodriguez2, J. Ezzahar3, S. Er-Raki4, G. Bigeard1, O. Merlin1, J. Garatuza-Payan5, C. Watts2, and G. Chehbouni1 1Centre d'Etudes Spatiales de la Biosphère, UPS, CNRS, CNES, IRD – UMR5126, Toulouse, France
2Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, México
3Centre National de l'Energie, des Sciences et des Techniques Nucléaires, Kénitra, Morocco
4LP2M2E, Département de physique, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université Cadi Ayyad, Marrakech, Morocco
5Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora, Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, México
Abstract. Instantaneous evapotranspiration rates and surface water stress levels can be deduced from remotely sensed surface temperature data through the surface energy budget. Two families of methods can be defined: the contextual methods, where stress levels are scaled on a given image between hot/dry and cool/wet pixels for a particular vegetation cover, and single-pixel methods, which evaluate latent heat as the residual of the surface energy balance for one pixel independently from the others. Four models, two contextual (S-SEBI and a modified triangle method, named VIT) and two single-pixel (TSEB, SEBS) are applied over one growing season (December–May) for a 4 km × 4 km irrigated agricultural area in the semi-arid northern Mexico. Their performance, both at local and spatial standpoints, are compared relatively to energy balance data acquired at seven locations within the area, as well as an uncalibrated soil–vegetation–atmosphere transfer (SVAT) model forced with local in situ data including observed irrigation and rainfall amounts. Stress levels are not always well retrieved by most models, but S-SEBI as well as TSEB, although slightly biased, show good performance. The drop in model performance is observed for all models when vegetation is senescent, mostly due to a poor partitioning both between turbulent fluxes and between the soil/plant components of the latent heat flux and the available energy. As expected, contextual methods perform well when contrasted soil moisture and vegetation conditions are encountered in the same image (therefore, especially in spring and early summer) while they tend to exaggerate the spread in water status in more homogeneous conditions (especially in winter). Surface energy balance models run with available remotely sensed products prove to be nearly as accurate as the uncalibrated SVAT model forced with in situ data.

Citation: Chirouze, J., Boulet, G., Jarlan, L., Fieuzal, R., Rodriguez, J. C., Ezzahar, J., Er-Raki, S., Bigeard, G., Merlin, O., Garatuza-Payan, J., Watts, C., and Chehbouni, G.: Intercomparison of four remote-sensing-based energy balance methods to retrieve surface evapotranspiration and water stress of irrigated fields in semi-arid climate, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1165-1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1165-2014, 2014.
Publications Copernicus
Download
Share