Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2000
DOI: 10.13031/2013.2739
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evapotranspiration Estimation From Infrared Surface Temperature. I: The Performance of the Flux Equation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, equality of radiometric and aerodynamic temperature, at least for composite surfaces, should not be expected. Supporting these findings, Alves et al (2000) found that radiometric surface temperature for dry conditions greatly depart from the aerodynamic temperature, which in turn will result in considerable errors in the estimation of sensible heat flux.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Challengesmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Hence, equality of radiometric and aerodynamic temperature, at least for composite surfaces, should not be expected. Supporting these findings, Alves et al (2000) found that radiometric surface temperature for dry conditions greatly depart from the aerodynamic temperature, which in turn will result in considerable errors in the estimation of sensible heat flux.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Challengesmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Despite some differences between temperatures for non-neutral conditions, they showed that inclusion of H using radiometric temperature improved ET estimates over those when H was neglected. Alves et al (2000a) reported radiometric temperatures up to 7°C less than aerodynamic temperatures (derived from Bowen ratio measurements in neutral conditions) for full-cover, well-watered winter wheat and iceberg lettuce in the Mediterranean climate of Portugal. They attributed their differing results to possible inaccuracies of lysimeters used in other studies, additive errors in residual methods of estimating sensible heat flux, differences in water stressed conditions, atmospheric buoyancy/stability, and especially to the greater aridity of their location in Portugal (although many of the other studies were conducted around Phoenix, Arizona).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…These expressions assume that the vegetation can be reduced to a "big leaf," which is extensive, level, at height d + z oh , where all exchanges of sensible at latent heat (vapor) occur (Monteith, 1973). In the case of full cover, non-water stressed vegetation, or low atmospheric demand, the area toward the top of the canopy (between d + z oh and h c ) can also contribute significantly to vapor flux, as demonstrated by Alves et al (2000a), hence an alternative is to replace z oh with h c -d in equation (4) (Perrier, 1975). This places the big leaf at the top of the canopy.…”
Section: Energy Balance Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This difference leads to errors in the estimation of H, which in turn leads to errors in the estimation of LE and ET through equation 1. Along those lines, Choudbury et al (1986), Kustas and Norman (1996), Chehbouni et al (1997a), Alves et al (2000), Nagar et al (2002), Crago et al (2004), and Yaoming et al (2003) reported similar findings. They showed differences between T o and T s ranging from less than 2°C to 3°C for uniform canopy covers to 10°C to 15°C for partial surface vegetation cover.…”
mentioning
confidence: 71%