Journal cover Journal topic
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

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 <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 99 Scimago H
    index 99
Volume 18, issue 1 | Copyright
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 193-212, 2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-193-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 15 Jan 2014

Research article | 15 Jan 2014

Comparison of different evaporation estimates over the African continent

P. Trambauer1, E. Dutra2, S. Maskey1, M. Werner1,3, F. Pappenberger2, L. P. H. van Beek4, and S. Uhlenbrook1,5 P. Trambauer et al.
  • 1UNESCO-IHE, Department of Water Science and Engineering, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, the Netherlands
  • 2ECMWF, Shinfield Park, RG2 9AX Reading, UK
  • 3Deltares, P.O. Box 177, 2600MH Delft, the Netherlands
  • 4Utrecht University, Dept. Physical Geography, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • 5Delft University of Technology, Water Resources Section, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands

Abstract. Evaporation is a key process in the water cycle with implications ranging, inter alia, from water management to weather forecast and climate change assessments. The estimation of continental evaporation fluxes is complex and typically relies on continental-scale hydrological models or land-surface models. However, it appears that most global or continental-scale hydrological models underestimate evaporative fluxes in some regions of Africa, and as a result overestimate stream flow. Other studies suggest that land-surface models may overestimate evaporative fluxes. In this study, we computed actual evaporation for the African continent using a continental version of the global hydrological model PCR-GLOBWB, which is based on a water balance approach. Results are compared with other independently computed evaporation products: the evaporation results from the ECMWF reanalysis ERA-Interim and ERA-Land (both based on the energy balance approach), the MOD16 evaporation product, and the GLEAM product. Three other alternative versions of the PCR-GLOBWB hydrological model were also considered. This resulted in eight products of actual evaporation, which were compared in distinct regions of the African continent spanning different climatic regimes. Annual totals, spatial patterns and seasonality were studied and compared through visual inspection and statistical methods. The comparison shows that the representation of irrigation areas has an insignificant contribution to the actual evaporation at a continental scale with a 0.5° spatial resolution when averaged over the defined regions. The choice of meteorological forcing data has a larger effect on the evaporation results, especially in the case of the precipitation input as different precipitation input resulted in significantly different evaporation in some of the studied regions. ERA-Interim evaporation is generally the highest of the selected products followed by ERA-Land evaporation. In some regions, the satellite-based products (GLEAM and MOD16) show a different seasonal behaviour compared to the other products. The results from this study contribute to a better understanding of the suitability and the differences between products in each climatic region. Through an improved understanding of the causes of differences between these products and their uncertainty, this study provides information to improve the quality of evaporation products for the African continent and, consequently, leads to improved water resources assessments at regional scale.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Share