Modelling evapotranspiration from a barley field over the growing season

Tourula, Tapio; Heikinheimo, Martti

doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(98)00065-3

Cited by 58 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…B1. Under unfavourable conditions where at least one of the stress functions equals 0, r s, st is assumed to be 0.58 d m −1 (50 000 s m −1 ), corresponding to the molecular diffusivity of water vapour through leaf cuticula (Tourula and Heikinheimo, 1998). If i LA is 0, no transpiration is allowed.…”

Section: Appendix A: Notationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contrasting roles of interception and transpiration in the hydrological cycle – Part 1: Temporal characteristics over land

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Moisture recycling, the contribution of terrestrial evaporation to precipitation, has important implications for both water and land management. Although terrestrial evaporation consists of different fluxes (i.e. transpiration, vegetation interception, floor interception, soil moisture evaporation, and open-water evaporation), moisture recycling (terrestrial evaporation-precipitation feedback) studies have up to now only analysed their combined total. This paper constitutes the first of two companion papers that investigate the characteristics and roles of different evaporation fluxes for land-atmosphere interactions. Here, we investigate the temporal characteristics of partitioned evaporation on land and present STEAM (Simple Terrestrial Evaporation to Atmosphere Model) -a hydrological land-surface model developed to provide inputs to moisture tracking. STEAM estimates a mean global terrestrial evaporation of 73 900 km 3 year −1 , of which 59 % is transpiration. Despite a relatively simple model structure, validation shows that STEAM produces realistic evaporative partitioning and hydrological fluxes that compare well with other global estimates over different locations, seasons, and land-use types. Using STEAM output, we show that the terrestrial residence timescale of transpiration (days to months) has larger inter-seasonal variation and is substantially longer than that of interception (hours). Most transpiration occurs several hours or days after a rain event, whereas interception is immediate. In agreement with previous research, our simulations suggest that the vegetation's ability to transpire by retaining and accessing soil moisture at greater depth is critical for sustained evaporation during the dry season. We conclude that the differences in temporal characteristics between evaporation fluxes are substantial and reasonably can cause differences in moisture recycling, which is investigated more in the companion paper (van der Ent et al., 2014, hereafter Part 2).

show abstract

Section: Appendix A: Notationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crutzen, 2002;Dore, 2005;Gordon et al, 2005;Rockström, 2009b;Trenberth, 2011). Understanding evaporation interaction with land and climate is essential, because evaporation holds a key role in regulating hydrological flows as well as atmospheric feedback.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting roles of interception and transpiration in the hydrological cycle – Part 1: Temporal characteristics over land

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These extended approaches provide the potential for modeling ET for the entire range of plant cover and the ability of partitioning ET between crop transpiration and soil evaporation. The advantage of these models has been recognized by several authors (e.g., Shuttleworth and Gurney 1990;Farahani and Ahuja 1996;Stannard 1993;Massman 1992;Gardiol et al 2003;Iritz et al 2001;Tourula and Heikinheimo 1998;Ortega-Farias et al 2007;Anadranistakis et al 2000;Alves and Cameira 2002;Lafleur and Rouse 1990). Results from using multiple-layer models are encouraging, in general, and these models performed satisfactorily for a large range of canopy cover than single-layer models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Surface energy balance model of transpiration from variable canopy cover and evaporation from residue-covered or bare soil systems: model evaluation

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Natural Resources by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -Lincoln.Lagos, Luis Octavio; Martin, Derrel; Verma, Shashi B.; Irmak, Suat; Kilic, Ayse; Eisenhauer, Dean E.; and Suyker, Andrew E., "Surface energy balance model of transpiration from variable canopy cover and evaporation from residue-covered or bare soil systems: Model evaluation" (2013 51-64 (2009) to estimate evapotranspiration (ET) from variable canopy cover and evaporation from residue-covered or bare soil systems. The model estimates latent, sensible, and soil heat fluxes and provides a method to partition evapotranspiration into soil/residue evaporation and plant transpiration. The objective of this work was to perform a sensitivity analysis of model parameters and evaluate the performance of the proposed model to estimate ET during the growing and nongrowing season of maize (Zea Mays L.) and soybeans (Glycine max) in eastern Nebraska. Results were compared with measured data from three eddy covariance systems under irrigated and rainfed conditions. Sensitivity analysis of model parameters showed that simulated ET was most sensitive to changes in surface canopy resistance, soil surface resistance, and residue surface resistance. Comparison between hourly estimated ET and measurements made in soybean and maize fields provided support for the validity of the surface energy balance model. For growing season's estimates, Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients ranged from 0.81 to 0.92 and the root mean square error (RMSE) varied from 33.0 to 48.3 W m -2 . After canopy closure (i.e., after leaf area index (LAI = 4) until harvest), Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.95 and RMSE varied from 22.6 to 40.5 W m -2 . Performance prior to canopy closure was less accurate. Overall, the evaluation of the SEB model during this study was satisfactory.

show abstract

“…Surface resistances regulate the heat and mass transfer in plant and soil surfaces, and aerodynamic resistances regulate fluxes between the surface and the atmospheric boundary layer. Several studies have evaluated the performance of the S-W model to estimate evapotranspiration (Farahani & Baush,1995;Stannard, 1993;Lafleur & Rouse, 1990;Farahani & Ahuja, 1996;Iritz et al 2001;Tourula & Heikinheimo, 1998;Anadranistakis et al, 2000;Ortega-Farias et al, 2007). Field tests of the model have shown promising results for a wide range of both agricultural and non-agricultural vegetation.…”

Section: Et Modelling Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that the general seasonal dynamics of evaporation were fairly well simulated with the model. Tourula and Heikinheimo (1998) evaluated a modified version of the S-W model in a barley field. A modification of soil surface resistance and aerodynamic resistance, over two growing seasons, produced daily and hourly ET estimates in good agreement with the measured evapotranspiration.…”

Section: Et Modelling Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%