|
Optimal evapotranspiration parameter estimation using GPS observation
|
Saeed Ebrahimi   , Yazdan Amerian * , Saeid Haji-Aghajany |
|
|
|
Abstract: (425 Views) |
Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) is a crucial component of the water cycle and energy balance. Typically, empirical models such as Thornthwaite (TH) and Penman-Monteith (PM) are employed to calculate PET. However, the TH model only considers temperature as a climatic input, leading to lower accuracy, whereas the PM model utilizes a wide range of meteorological parameters, providing much higher accuracy. Nonetheless, the PET derived from these methods generally has low spatial resolution, as it is calculated for a single point. Therefore, in this study, to achieve highly accurate PET estimates with fewer meteorological parameters and enhanced spatial resolution, an optimized PET estimator model (KPET) was developed, which utilizes precipitable water vapor (PWV) derived from the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). Initially, the difference between PET calculated by the PM and TH models (DPET) was determined. Then, the relationship between DPET and PWV, temperature, pressure, and spatiotemporal parameters was analyzed, leading to the selection of a quadratic polynomial regression model. Finally, the new model was developed by adding the fitted DPET to the initial PET derived from the TH model. Los Angeles was chosen as the study area, and the statistical results demonstrated the satisfactory performance of the proposed KPET model in the region. The statistical metrics of RMSE, MAE, and the correlation coefficient were used to evaluate the KPET and TH models relative to the PM model, and the evaluation results were compared. The statistical results, averaged across all control stations, showed that the KPET model achieved an RMSE of 0.42 mm, an MAE of 0.33 mm, and a correlation coefficient of 0.98, outperforming the TH model, which had an RMSE of 1.84 mm, an MAE of 1.71 mm, and a correlation coefficient of 0.92. Additionally, the improvement in RMSE across the control stations was found to be 72.25%, 82.6%, 79.7%, 78.95%, and 62.72%, respectively. These findings indicate that the KPET model developed in this study can accurately and reliably estimate PET using limited meteorological data in the region. |
Article number: 2 |
| Keywords: : potential evapotranspiration, Global Navigation Satellite Systems, precipitable water vapor, Penman-Monteith method, Thornthwaite method |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 709 kb]
(90 Downloads)
|
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Geo&Hydro
Received: 2024/11/3 | Accepted: 2026/01/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| References |
|
1. Allen, R., et al., FAO Irrigation and drainage paper No. 56. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1998. 56: p. 26-40. 2. McKenney, M.S. and N.J. Rosenberg, Sensitivity of some potential evapotranspiration estimation methods to climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 1993. 64(1): p. 81-110. [ DOI:10.1016/0168-1923(93)90095-Y] 3. Fisher, J.B., R.J. Whittaker, and Y. Malhi, ET come home: potential evapotranspiration in geographical ecology. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2011. 20(1): p. 1-18. [ DOI:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00578.x] 4. Thornthwaite, C.W., An Approach toward a Rational Classification of Climate. Geographical Review, 1948. 38(1): p. 55-94. [ DOI:10.2307/210739] 5. Hao, L., et al., A Comprehensive Study on Factors Affecting the Calibration of Potential Evapotranspiration Derived from the Thornthwaite Model. Remote sensing, 2022. 14(18): p. 4644-4644. [ DOI:10.3390/rs14184644] 6. Hsin-Fu, Y., Comparison of Evapotranspiration Methods Under Limited Data, in Current Perspective to Predict Actual Evapotranspiration, B. Daniel, Editor. 2017, IntechOpen: Rijeka. p. Ch. 1. 7. Li, H., et al., Estimation of diurnal-provided potential evapotranspiration using GNSS and meteorological products. Atmospheric Research, 2022. 280: p. 106424. [ DOI:10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106424] 8. Sheffield, J., E. Wood, and M. Roderick, Little Change in Global Drought over the Past 60 Years. Nature, 2012. 491: p. 435-438. [ DOI:10.1038/nature11575] 9. Pereira, A. and W. Pruitt, Adaptation of the Thornthwaite Scheme for Estimating Daily Reference Evapotranspiration. Agricultural Water Management, 2004. 66: p. 251-257. [ DOI:10.1016/j.agwat.2003.11.003] 10. Zhao, Q., et al., High-Precision Potential Evapotranspiration Model Using GNSS Observation. Remote Sensing, 2021. 13: p. 4848. [ DOI:10.3390/rs13234848] 11. H. Hargreaves, G. and Z. A. Samani, Reference Crop Evapotranspiration from Temperature. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 1985. 1(2): p. 96-99. [ DOI:10.13031/2013.26773] 12. Zotarelli, L., et al., Step by step calculation of the Penman-Monteith Evapotranspiration (FAO-56 Method). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. University of Florida, 2010. 8. [ DOI:10.32473/edis-ae459-2010] 13. Vicente-Serrano, S., S. Beguería, and J.I. López-Moreno, A Multiscalar Drought Index Sensitive to Global Warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. Journal of Climate, 2010. 23: p. 1696-1718. [ DOI:10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1] 14. Zhao, Q., et al., Retrieval of a High-Precision Drought Monitoring Index by Using GNSS-Derived ZTD and Temperature. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2021. PP: p. 1-1. [ DOI:10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3106703] 15. Mori, M., K. Hiramatsu, and M. Harada, Estimating Daily Potential Evapotranspiration using the Relation between GPS-derived Precipitable Water Vapor and Surface Temperature. Transactions of The Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Rural Engineering, 2007. 2007(250): p. 347-352,a1. 16. Zhao, Q., et al., Improved Drought Monitoring Index Using GNSS- Derived Precipitable Water Vapor over the Loess Plateau Area. Sensors, 2019. 19: p. 5566. [ DOI:10.3390/s19245566] 17. Ma, X., et al., A novel method of retrieving potential ET in China. Journal of Hydrology, 2021. 598: p. 126271. [ DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126271] 18. Pipatsitee, P., et al., Estimating daily potential evapotranspiration using GNSS-based precipitable water vapor. Heliyon, 2023. 9(7): p. e17747. [ DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17747] 19. Aschonitis, V., et al., Correcting Thornthwaite potential evapotranspiration using a global grid of local coefficients to support temperature-based estimations of reference evapotranspiration and aridity indices. 2021. [ DOI:10.5194/essd-2021-115] 20. Bevis, M., et al., GPS Meteorology: Remote Sensing of Atmospheric Water Vapor Using the Global Positioning System. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1992. 97. [ DOI:10.1029/92JD01517] 21. Abdellaoui, H., N. Zaourar, and S. Kahlouche, Contribution of permanent stations GPS data to estimate the water vapor content over Algeria. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2019. 12. [ DOI:10.1007/s12517-019-4226-2] 22. Saastamoinen, J., Contributions to the theory of atmospheric refraction. Bulletin Géodésique (1946-1975), 1972. 105(1): p. 279-298. [ DOI:10.1007/BF02521844] 23. Adavi, Z., R. Weber, and M.F. Glaner, Assessment of regularization techniques in GNSS tropospheric tomography based on single- and dual-frequency observations. GPS Solutions, 2021. 26(1): p. 21. [ DOI:10.1007/s10291-021-01202-2] 24. Hastie, T., et al., The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Math. Intell., 2004. 27: p. 83-85. [ DOI:10.1007/BF02985802] 25. James, G., et al., An Introduction to Statistical Learning. 2013. 426. [ DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7] 26. Bruno, D., et al., Climate of Los Angeles, California. 2000.
|
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
|
|
