Potential evaporation at eddy-covariance sites across the globe
Potential evaporation (Ep) is a crucial variable for hydrological forecasting and drought monitoring. However, multiple interpretations of Ep exist, which reflect a diverse range of methods to calculate it. A comparison of the performance of these methods against field observations in different glob...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Hydrology and earth system sciences 2019-02, Vol.23 (2), p.925-948 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Potential evaporation (Ep) is a crucial variable for
hydrological forecasting and drought monitoring. However, multiple
interpretations of Ep exist, which reflect a diverse range of methods to
calculate it. A comparison of the performance of these methods against field
observations in different global ecosystems is urgently needed. In this
study, potential evaporation was defined as the rate of terrestrial
evaporation (or evapotranspiration) that the actual ecosystem would attain if it were to evaporate at
maximal rate for the given atmospheric conditions. We use eddy-covariance
measurements from the FLUXNET2015 database, covering 11 different
biomes, to parameterise and inter-compare the most widely used
Ep methods and to uncover their relative performance. For each of the 107 sites, we isolate
days for which ecosystems can be considered unstressed, based on both an
energy balance and a soil water content approach. Evaporation measurements
during these days are used as reference to calibrate and validate the
different methods to estimate Ep. Our results indicate that a simple
radiation-driven method, calibrated per biome, consistently performs best
against in situ measurements (mean correlation of 0.93; unbiased RMSE of
0.56 mm day−1; and bias of −0.02 mm day−1). A Priestley and Taylor method,
calibrated per biome, performed just slightly worse, yet substantially and
consistently better than more complex Penman-based, Penman–Monteith-based or
temperature-driven approaches. We show that the poor performance of
Penman–Monteith-based approaches largely relates to the fact that the
unstressed stomatal conductance cannot be assumed to be constant in time at
the ecosystem scale. On the contrary, the biome-specific parameters required
by simpler radiation-driven methods are relatively constant in time and per
biome type. This makes these methods a robust way to estimate Ep and a
suitable tool to investigate the impact of water use and demand, drought
severity and biome productivity. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1607-7938 1027-5606 1607-7938 |
DOI: | 10.5194/hess-23-925-2019 |