The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2021
DOI: 10.3390/rs13122337
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Artificial Neural Network Model of Soil Heat Flux over Multiple Land Covers in South America

Abstract: Soil heat flux (G) is an important component for the closure of the surface energy balance (SEB) and the estimation of evapotranspiration (ET) by remote sensing algorithms. Over the last decades, efforts have been focused on parameterizing empirical models for G prediction, based on biophysical parameters estimated by remote sensing. However, due to the existing models’ empirical nature and the restricted conditions in which they were developed, using these models in large-scale applications may lead to signif… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…9,37-40 The G was the component of the energy balance estimated by SEBAL that had the lowest performance, given the weak correlation between the measured and estimated G. Despite this, their means did not differ statistically, and the error values were much smaller than the range of 30 to 80 Wm −2 obtained in forest, grassland, and urban areas. 9,[41][42][43][44] This is because G are related to surface coverage, and the plant canopy works as a thermal insulator, preventing the solar radiation reaches the ground. 15,41 Thus, G is dependent on the surface water availability and vegetation density, and therefore, point measurements of G should not be extrapolated to the entire area.…”
Section: Spatio-temporal Patterns Of Surface Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9,37-40 The G was the component of the energy balance estimated by SEBAL that had the lowest performance, given the weak correlation between the measured and estimated G. Despite this, their means did not differ statistically, and the error values were much smaller than the range of 30 to 80 Wm −2 obtained in forest, grassland, and urban areas. 9,[41][42][43][44] This is because G are related to surface coverage, and the plant canopy works as a thermal insulator, preventing the solar radiation reaches the ground. 15,41 Thus, G is dependent on the surface water availability and vegetation density, and therefore, point measurements of G should not be extrapolated to the entire area.…”
Section: Spatio-temporal Patterns Of Surface Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ML also shown optimal results for the estimation of environmental variables [52], H and LE retrievals [e.g., 53], other SEB components such as Rn, H and LE [e.g., 54,55] or ET [56,57]. For the estimation of G, [32] modelled the heat flux with ANN and RS data, and [33] compared the ANN and two empirical equations based on NDVI, Ts and α. In accordance with our findings, in both of the works, ML outperformed the other methods for the estimation of G. The underestimation of the empirical equations and the large errors found at high Fv ranges are partly because the majority of the type I and II equations rely on a single linear relationship with the predictor variables.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Accuracy And Performance Of The Different Me...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, up the date, only [32] modelled the G with RS data and the Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) ML algorithm. Furthermore, only [33] provided a comparison of the ANN model against two G/Rn empirical equations. To our best of knowledge, no study compared the performance of ensemble ML models, such as boosted regression trees (e.g., Random Forest (RF)), against the results obtained with neural networks (NN), and the ones obtained with the calibrated version of the G/Rn empirical equations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Probably, the low performance of the G estimate is due to the low sensitivity of the model to the high spatial complexity of the study area. G tends not to have a high impact on the SEB and ET of densely vegetated surface, due to the lesser part of the available energy used to heat the soil, but G tends to impact the SEB and ET of surfaces with low vegetation cover, as the pastures and some natural grasslands in Cerrado and Pantanal [13,82,85].…”
Section: The Effects Of α and T S Retreival Models On Sebfs And Etmentioning
confidence: 99%