The lack of consistent, accurate information on evapotranspiration (ET) and consumptive use of water by irrigated agriculture is one of the most important data gaps for water managers in the western United States (U.S.) and other arid agricultural regions globally. The ability to easily access information on ET is central to improving water budgets across the West, advancing the use of data‐driven irrigation management strategies, and expanding incentive‐driven conservation programs. Recent advances in remote sensing of ET have led to the development of multiple approaches for field‐scale ET mapping that have been used for local and regional water resource management applications by U.S. state and federal agencies. The OpenET project is a community‐driven effort that is building upon these advances to develop an operational system for generating and distributing ET data at a field scale using an ensemble of six well‐established satellite‐based approaches for mapping ET. Key objectives of OpenET include: Increasing access to remotely sensed ET data through a web‐based data explorer and data services; supporting the use of ET data for a range of water resource management applications; and development of use cases and training resources for agricultural producers and water resource managers. Here we describe the OpenET framework, including the models used in the ensemble, the satellite, meteorological, and ancillary data inputs to the system, and the OpenET data visualization and access tools. We also summarize an extensive intercomparison and accuracy assessment conducted using ground measurements of ET from 139 flux tower sites instrumented with open path eddy covariance systems. Results calculated for 24 cropland sites from Phase I of the intercomparison and accuracy assessment demonstrate strong agreement between the satellite‐driven ET models and the flux tower ET data. For the six models that have been evaluated to date (ALEXI/DisALEXI, eeMETRIC, geeSEBAL, PT‐JPL, SIMS, and SSEBop) and the ensemble mean, the weighted average mean absolute error (MAE) values across all sites range from 13.6 to 21.6 mm/month at a monthly timestep, and 0.74 to 1.07 mm/day at a daily timestep. At seasonal time scales, for all but one of the models the weighted mean total ET is within ±8% of both the ensemble mean and the weighted mean total ET calculated from the flux tower data. Overall, the ensemble mean performs as well as any individual model across nearly all accuracy statistics for croplands, though some individual models may perform better for specific sites and regions. We conclude with three brief use cases to illustrate current applications and benefits of increased access to ET data, and discuss key lessons learned from the development of OpenET.

Reliable evapotranspiration (ET) estimation is a key factor for water resources planning, attaining sustainable water resources use, irrigation water management, and water regulation. During the past few decades, researchers have developed a variety of remote sensing techniques to estimate ET. The Earth Engine Evapotranspiration Flux (EEFlux) application uses Landsat imagery archives on the Google Earth Engine platform to calculate the daily evapotranspiration at the local field scale (30 m). Automatically calibrated for each Landsat image, the EEFlux application design is based on the widely vetted Mapping Evapotranspiration at high Resolution with Internalized Calibration (METRIC) model and produces ET estimation maps for any Landsat 5, 7 or 8 scene in a matter of seconds. In this research we evaluate the consistency and accuracy of EEFlux products that are produced when standard US and global assets are used. Processed METRIC products for 58 scenes distributed around the western and central United States were used as the baseline for comparison. The goal of this paper is to compare the results from EEFlux with the standard METRIC applications to illustrate the utility of the EEFlux products as they currently stand. Given that EEFlux is derived from METRIC, differences are expected to occur due to differing calibration methods (automatic versus manual) and differing input datasets. The products compared include the fraction of reference ET (ETrF), actual ET (ETa), and surface energy balance components net radiation (Rn), ground heat flux (G), and sensible heat flux (H), as well as Ts, albedo and NDVI. The product comparisons show that the intermediate products of Ts, Albedo, and NDVI, and also Rn have similar values and behavior for both EEFlux and METRIC. Larger differences were found for H and G. Despite the more significant differences in H and G, results show that EEFlux is able to calculate ETrF and ETa values comparable to the values from trained expert METRIC users for agricultural areas. For non-agricultural areas such as semi-arid rangeland and forests, the automated EEFlux calibration algorithm needs to be improved in order to be able to reproduce ETrF and ETa that is similar to the manually calibrated METRIC products.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract