Two evapotranspiration models: the Penman Monteith model with a combined surface resistance (PM) and the Shuttleworth-Wallace model (SW) and have been compared for the evaluation of the partition between soil and canopy contribution to the evapotranspiration. The model parameters have been calibrated using yearly time series from the CNR ISAC-Lecce database. Both models have been arranged with 5 free (calibrated) parameters. Four of them are related to moisture response of the soil/canopy surface resistances, and the last one being respectively the Leaf Area Index (LAI) for the SW and the scalar transfer coefficient (Ch) for the PM model. After calibration, the models do not show significant overall differences in reproducing the evapotranspiration fluxes, with a slightly lower least square error for the SW model. However, the SW model shows up to a 20% increase of the soil contribution with respect to the PM model. Both models show approximately balanced soil/canopy contributions to the evapotranspiration during the wet season, while the canopy contribution tends to dominate in the dry season.

Evapotranspiration partition in a Mediterranean site by two calibrated models.

Paolo Martano
2018

Abstract

Two evapotranspiration models: the Penman Monteith model with a combined surface resistance (PM) and the Shuttleworth-Wallace model (SW) and have been compared for the evaluation of the partition between soil and canopy contribution to the evapotranspiration. The model parameters have been calibrated using yearly time series from the CNR ISAC-Lecce database. Both models have been arranged with 5 free (calibrated) parameters. Four of them are related to moisture response of the soil/canopy surface resistances, and the last one being respectively the Leaf Area Index (LAI) for the SW and the scalar transfer coefficient (Ch) for the PM model. After calibration, the models do not show significant overall differences in reproducing the evapotranspiration fluxes, with a slightly lower least square error for the SW model. However, the SW model shows up to a 20% increase of the soil contribution with respect to the PM model. Both models show approximately balanced soil/canopy contributions to the evapotranspiration during the wet season, while the canopy contribution tends to dominate in the dry season.
2018
evapotranpiration partition
eddy covariance
evapotranspiration models
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/347252
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact