Evaluating the accuracy of nine canopy resistance models in estimating winter wheat evapotranspiration using the Penman–Monteith equation

Accurate estimation of farmland evapotranspiration (ET) is crucial for agricultural production. The accuracy of the widely used Penman-Monteith (PM) equation for estimating crop ET depends on the quality of input data and their ability to accurately model the canopy resistance (<i>r</i> <sub>c</sub>). In this study, we evaluated the PM equation in estimating winter wheat ET using nine <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models, with both original and recalibrated parameters, including the Farias (FA), Monteith (MT), Garcίa-Santos (GA), Idso (IS), Jarvis (JA), Katerji-Perrier (KP), Stannard (ST), Todorovic (TD), and Coupled surface resistance (CO) models. We used long-term measurements (2018 to 2023) from the Bowen ratio energy balance method at both daily and seasonal scales. Parameterization was performed using data from the 2020-2021 growing season, while the remaining 4 years were used for verification. The results showed that the FA, KP, and ST models performed better in estimating daily ET with original parameters, achieving a root mean square error (RMSE) of 1.07-1.16 mm d<sup>-1</sup> and a mean bias error (MBE) of -0.59-0.02 mm d<sup>-1</sup>. After parameterization, the performance of acceptable <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models based on RMSE (ranging from 1.07 to 1.22 mm d<sup>-1</sup>, averaged 1.16 mm d<sup>-1</sup>) ranked as follows on the daily scale: FA > CO > KP > ST > IS > GA > JA > MT. The <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models were more accurate in simulating ET on a seasonal scale than on the daily scale. Before calibration, the acceptable FA, KP, and MT models overestimated seasonal ET with the MBE ranging from 2.83 to 75.32 mm and RMSE from 29.79 to 82.38 mm. After correction, the suitable <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models based on RMSE values decreased by FA > CO > KP > IS > ST > GA > JA on the seasonal scale, which ranged from 29.79 to 76.35 mm. The performance of the revised <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models improved on both daily and seasonal scales, with RMSE reductions of 29.03% and 68.18%, respectively. Considering both the accuracy and calculation complexity, the FA and KP models were recommended to be used in the PM equation to estimate daily and seasonal ET in semiarid regions. The CO, GA, ST, IS, and JA models can also be used as alternatives, depending on the availability of meteorological parameters.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Plant Science
Published
2024-11-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1470409
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.28

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the accuracy of nine canopy resistance models in estimating winter wheat evapotranspiration using the Penman–Monteith equation

Yingnan Wu, Qiaozhen Li, Xiaoying Liu, Xiuli Zhong
1 citations
Frontiers in Plant Science
Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
0.28
article

Evaluating the accuracy of nine canopy resistance models in estimating winter wheat evapotranspiration using the Penman–Monteith equation

Yingnan Wu, Qiaozhen Li, Xiaoying Liu, Xiuli Zhong
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Accurate estimation of farmland evapotranspiration (ET) is crucial for agricultural production. The accuracy of the widely used Penman-Monteith (PM) equation for estimating crop ET depends on the quality of input data and their ability to accurately model the canopy resistance (<i>r</i> <sub>c</sub>). In this study, we evaluated the PM equation in estimating winter wheat ET using nine <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models, with both original and recalibrated parameters, including the Farias (FA), Monteith (MT), Garcίa-Santos (GA), Idso (IS), Jarvis (JA), Katerji-Perrier (KP), Stannard (ST), Todorovic (TD), and Coupled surface resistance (CO) models. We used long-term measurements (2018 to 2023) from the Bowen ratio energy balance method at both daily and seasonal scales. Parameterization was performed using data from the 2020-2021 growing season, while the remaining 4 years were used for verification. The results showed that the FA, KP, and ST models performed better in estimating daily ET with original parameters, achieving a root mean square error (RMSE) of 1.07-1.16 mm d<sup>-1</sup> and a mean bias error (MBE) of -0.59-0.02 mm d<sup>-1</sup>. After parameterization, the performance of acceptable <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models based on RMSE (ranging from 1.07 to 1.22 mm d<sup>-1</sup>, averaged 1.16 mm d<sup>-1</sup>) ranked as follows on the daily scale: FA > CO > KP > ST > IS > GA > JA > MT. The <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models were more accurate in simulating ET on a seasonal scale than on the daily scale. Before calibration, the acceptable FA, KP, and MT models overestimated seasonal ET with the MBE ranging from 2.83 to 75.32 mm and RMSE from 29.79 to 82.38 mm. After correction, the suitable <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models based on RMSE values decreased by FA > CO > KP > IS > ST > GA > JA on the seasonal scale, which ranged from 29.79 to 76.35 mm. The performance of the revised <i>r</i> <sub>c</sub> models improved on both daily and seasonal scales, with RMSE reductions of 29.03% and 68.18%, respectively. Considering both the accuracy and calculation complexity, the FA and KP models were recommended to be used in the PM equation to estimate daily and seasonal ET in semiarid regions. The CO, GA, ST, IS, and JA models can also be used as alternatives, depending on the availability of meteorological parameters.

Frontiers in Plant ScienceVol. 15
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CN), Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program of China
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 41%
Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
0.28
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.