TWO-SOURCE ENERGY BALANCE MODEL TO CALCULATE E, T, AND ET: COMPARISON OF PRIESTLEY-TAYLOR AND PENMAN-MONTEITH FORMULATIONS AND TWO TIME SCALING METHODS

Authors

Paul D. Colaizzi, USDA-ARSFollow
Nurit Agam, USDA-ARSFollow
Judy A. Tolk, USDA-ARS
Steven R. Evett, USDA-ARSFollow
Terry A. Howell, USDA-ARSFollow
Prasanna H. Gowda, USDA-ARSFollow
Susan A. O'Shaughnessy, USDA-ARSFollow
William P. Kustas, USDA-ARSFollow
Martha C. Anderson, USDA-ARSFollow

Document Type

Article

Date of this Version

2014

Citation

Transactions of the ASABE. 57(2): 479-498. (doi: 10.13031/trans.57.10423)

Comments

U.S. government work.

Abstract

The two-source energy balance (TSEB) model calculates the energy balance of the soil-canopy-atmosphere continuum, where transpiration is initially determined by the Priestley-Taylor equation. The TSEB was revised recently using the Penman-Monteith equation to replace the Priestley-Taylor formulation, thus better accounting for the impact of large and varying vapor pressure deficits (VPD) typical of advective, semiarid climates. This study is a comparison of the Priestley- Taylor and Penman-Monteith versions of the TSEB (termed TSEB-PT and TSEB-PM, respectively). Evaporation (E), transpiration (T), and evapotranspiration (ET) calculated by the TSEB-PT and TSEB-PM versions were compared to measurements obtained with microlysimeters, sap flow gauges, and weighing lysimeters, respectively, for fully irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) at Bushland, Texas. Radiometric surface temperature (T_R) was used to calculate E, T, and ET in both TSEB versions in 15 min intervals and summed to intervals coinciding with times of measurements. In addition, a one-time-of-day T_R measurement was used (9:45, 11:15, 12:45, 14:15, or 15:45 CST), and E, T, and ET were calculated for the appropriate measurement interval (i.e., daytime, nighttime, and 24 h) using the time scaling methods based on reference ET (TSC_ET) and reference temperature (TSC_TEMP). Measured average values of E, T, and ET during the study period were 0.94 mm (24 h), 6.9 mm (7:00 to 22:00 CST), and 7.2 mm (24 h), respectively. The TSEB-PT consistently overestimated E and underestimated T, with RMSE/MBE of up to 2.8/1.8 mm and 4.1/-3.9 mm, respectively. In comparison, the TSEB-PM greatly reduced discrepancies between calculations and measurements, with respective RMSE/MBE for E and T of only up to 1.5/0.79 mm and 1.3/±0.76 mm, respectively. For 24 h ET, the TSEB-PT resulted in maximum RMSE/MBE of 3.2/-1.9 mm, and the TSEB-PM had maximum RMSE/MBE of 1.7/0.95 mm. Daytime ET model agreement was very similar for both model versions (RMSE/MBE usually <1.1/ET or TSC_TEMP methods, and results did not greatly differ for TSC_ET or TSC_TEMP. Both time scaling methods were not very sensitive to the T_R measurement time used, although morning (9:45 CST) T_R measurement times did not perform as well as the other times.