Evaluation of evapotranspiration models over semi‐arid and semi‐humid areas of China |
| |
| Authors: | Zesu Yang Qiang Zhang Yang Yang Xiaocui Hao Hongli Zhang |
| |
| Institution: | 1. College of Atmospheric Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China;2. Institute of Arid Meteorology, China Meteorological Administration;3. Key laboratory of Arid Climatic Change and Reducing Disaster of Gansu Province, Key Open Laboratory of Arid Climatic Change and Disaster Reduction of CMA, Lanzhou, China;4. Northwest Regional Climate Center, Lanzhou, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Evapotranspiration (ET) is a critical component in the hydrological cycle. However, its actual values appear to be difficult to obtain, especially in areas in which precipitation has high inter‐annual variability. Here, we evaluated eight commonly used ET models in semi‐arid and semi‐humid areas of China. The order of overall performance from best to worst is as follows: the revised Priestley–Taylor model (PT‐JPL, 0.71, 1.65 18.37%], 4.72 49.19%]) a a Statistics (model abbreviation, coefficient of determination, bias relative value], standard deviation relative value]).
, the modified PT‐JPL model (M1‐PT‐JPL, 0.67, ?0.68 7.56%], 3.87 40.31%]), the Community Land Model (CLM, 0.68, ?2.52 28.01%], 5.10 53.17%]), the modified PT‐JPL model (M2‐PT‐JPL, 0.63, 0.57 6.27%], 5.04 52.52%]), the revised Penman–Monteith model (RS‐PM, 0.62, 3.56 37.40%], 6.11 63.68%]), an empirical model (Wang, 0.59, ?1.04 11.57%], 5.61 58.43%]), the advection‐aridity model (AA, 0.55, 5.56 61.78%], 7.45 77.60%]), and the energy balance model (SEBS, 0.35, 5.11 56.72%], 9.43 98.18%]). The performance of all of the models is comparably poor in winter and summer, except for the PT‐JPL model, and relatively good in spring and autumn. Because of the vegetation control on ET, the Wang, RS‐PM, PT‐JPL, M1‐PT‐JPL, and M2‐PT‐JPL models perform better for cropland, whereas the AA model, SEBS model and CLM perform better for grassland. The CLM, PT‐JPL, and Wang models perform better in semi‐arid region than in semi‐humid region, whereas the opposite is true for SEBS and RS‐PM. The AA, M1‐PT‐JPL, and M2‐PT‐JPL models perform similarly in semi‐arid and semi‐humid regions. When considering the inter‐annual variability in precipitation, the Wang model has relatively good performance under only some annual precipitation conditions; the performance of the PT‐JPL and AA models is reduced under conditions of high precipitation; the two modified PT‐JPL models inherited the steady performance of the PT‐JPL model and improved the performance under conditions of high annual precipitation by the modification of the soil moisture constraint. RS‐PM is more appropriate for humid conditions. CLM and PT‐JPL models could be effectively applied to all precipitation conditions because of their good performance across a wide annual precipitation range. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| |
| Keywords: | evapotranspiration Priestley– Taylor Penman– Monteith CLM energy balance inter‐annual variability of precipitation |
|
|
