The Evaluation of Evapotranspiration Product of MODIS with Penman-Montieth FAO 56 and Priestley-Taylor Evapotranspiration at the Different Climate Types of Iran

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Associate Prof., Dept. of Water Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University

2 M.Sc. Graduate, Dept. of Water Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University

Abstract

Abstract
Background and Purpose
Evapotranspiration is one of the most critical components in the land branch of the hydrological cycle, which, as the link between water and energy cycles, plays an essential role in the interaction of the atmosphere and surface. Getting access to remote sensing images has made it possible to study evapotranspiration spatially and temporally, including actual evapotranspiration (AET) and potential evapotranspiration (PET). Evapotranspiration of the MOD16A2 MODIS sensor can be very useful among remote sensing images due to its very appropriate spatial (500 m) and temporal (8 daily) resolutions in regional studies in areas without data.
Materials and Methods
This study evaluated the MODIS global terrestrial potential evapotranspiration product (MOD16A2) using two reference evapotranspiration methods of Penman-Monteith FAO 56 and Priestley-Taylor in meteorological stations from 2001 to 2018. The study area is located in the southwestern provinces of Iran (Khuzestan and Bushehr), west of Iran (Hamedan and Kermanshah provinces), and north of Iran (Guilan and Mazandaran provinces), which is classified from arid to perhumid according to the UNESCO method. Then, Penman-Monteith FAO 56 and Priestley-Taylor reference evapotranspiration was prepared using meteorological data with the Evapotranspiration package R software, and the potential evapotranspiration data of the MOD16A2 product was provided using the Google Earth Engine system. Then, these data were compared based on evaluation metrics in different climates.
Findings
Compared to both the Penman-Monteith FAO 56 and Priestley-Taylor methods, the MOD16A2 product overestimates evapotranspiration in all climate types and has greater variance in data. The statistical properties of the MOD16A2 include: the first and third quarters in arid and semi-arid climates with Penman-Monteith FAO 56 evapotranspiration is less different than the Priestley-Taylor method. In contrast, the first and third quarters of the MOD16A2 are more similar to the Priestley-Taylor evapotranspiration in semi-humid, humid, and perhumid climates. MOD16A2 also estimates the seasonal evapotranspiration cycles well, but the date of the MOD16A2 peaks in all climate types occur mostly with one-week precedence. The evapotranspiration of the MOD16A2 is successful in estimating the Penman-Monteith (Priestley-Taylor) evapotranspiration in arid and semi-arid climates (semi-humid to perhumid climates), particularly semi-arid with cold winters and hot summers climate (perhumid climate), due to the small errors of the model, including PBIAS and RMSE respectively in the range of 40.3-46.5% and 14.19-6.6mm/8d (the range of 72.5-97% and 6-24.5 mm/8d), the high coefficient of the modified agreement index in the range of 0.5-0.61 (0.37-0.5), weighted determination in the range of 0.55-0.63 (0.44-0.51). Moreover, there is a strong positive linear relationship among MOD16A2, Priestley-Taylor, and Penman-Monteith in most climate types, because of their high correlation coefficients (more than 0.85).
Conclusion
The results of this study indicate less uncertainty in evapotranspiration of the MOD16A2 product with the Penman-Monteith FAO 56 method in the semi-arid and arid climates, especially semi-arid climates. In contrast, in the semi-humid to hyperhumid climates, MOD16A2 product has less uncertainty with the Priestley-Taylor method. Also, the MOD16A2 product has the least uncertainty in the semi-arid climates due to the least errors. Therefore, considering the recent climate change in terms of increasing temperature and consequently increasing evapotranspiration, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions around the world, and proposing the Penman-Monteith FAO 56 as the standard method of estimating evapotranspiration by FAO, the MOD16A2 evapotranspiration can play a crucial role in irrigation planning, water resources management, and drought monitoring in the arid and semi-arid climates without any observed dataset, especially semi-arid climates.

Keywords


1.Allen, R.G., Smith, M., Perrier, A., and Pereira, L. 1994. An Update for the Definition of Reference Evapotranspiration AND An Update for the Calculation of Reference Evapotranspiration. ICID Bull Int Comm Irrig Drain. Pp: 1-34.
2.Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., and Ab, W. 1998.Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Fao, Rome.
3.Allen, R.G., Pruitt, W.O., Wright, J.L., Howell, T.A., Ventura, F., Snyder, R.,et al. 2006. A recommendation on standardized surface resistance for hourly calculation of reference ETo by the FAO56 Penman-Monteith method. Agric. Water Manag. 81: 1-2. 1-22.
4.Anabalón, A., and Sharma, A. 2017. On the divergence of potential and actual evapotranspiration trends: An assessment across alternate global datasets. Earths Future. 5: 9. 905-917.
5.Cleugh, H.A., Leuning, R., Mu, Q.,and Running, SW. 2007. Regional evaporation estimates from flux tower and MODIS satellite data. Remote Sens. Environ. 106: 3. 285-304.
6.Courault, D., Seguin, B., and Olioso,A. 2005. Review on estimation of evapotranspiration from remote sensing data: From empirical to numerical modeling approaches. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 19: 3. 223-249.
7.Eichinger, W.E., Parlange, M.B., and Stricker, H. 1996. On the concept of equilibrium evaporation and the value of the Priestley-Taylor coefficient. Water Resour. Res. 32: 1. 161-164.
8.Ghaffari, V., Ghasemi, V.R., and Pauw, E. 2015. Agro climatically zoning of Iran by UNESCO approach. J. Dryland Agric. 4: 1. 63-74. (In Persian)
9.Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. 2017. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ. 202: 18-27.
10.Hu, G., Jia, L., and Menenti, M. 2015. Comparison of MOD16 and LSA–SAF MSG evapo- transpiration products over Europe for 2011. Remote Sens. Environ. 156: 510-526.
11 Jabloun, M., and Sahli, A. 2008. Evaluation of FAO-56 methodology for estimating reference evapotranspiration using limited climatic data. Agric Water Manag. 95: 6. 707-715.
12.Jovanovic, N., Mu, Q., Bugan, R.,and Zhao, M. 2015. Dynamics of MODIS evapotranspiration in South Africa. Water SA. 41: 1. 79-91.
13.Krause, P., Boyle, D.P., and Bäse, F. 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv. Geosci. 5: 89-97.
14 Khan, M.S., Liaqat, U.W., Baik, J., and Choi, M. 2018. Stand-alone uncertainty characterization of GLEAM, GLDAS and MOD16 evapotranspiration products using an extended triple collocation approach. Agric. For. Meteorol. 25: 256-268.
15.Martens, B., Miralles, D.G., Lievens, H., van der Schalie, R., de Jeu, RAM., Fernández-Prieto, D., et al. 2017. GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geosci Model Dev. 10: 5. 1903-1925.
16.Mehdizadeh, S., Saadatnejadgharahassanlou, H., and Behmanesh, J. 2017. Calibration of Hargreaves–Samani and Priestley–Taylor equations in estimating reference evapotranspiration in the Northwestof Iran. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.63: 7. 942-955.
17.Moradi, F., Kamali, G., and Vazifedoost M. 2015. Evaluation of Potential Evapotranspiration from MODIS Product Using Synoptic Stations of Zanjan Province. Res Climatol. Pp: 39-49. (In Persian)
18.Moraes, V.H., Giongo, P.R., Arantes, B.H.T, Costa, E.M., Ventura, M.V.A., Cavalcante, T.J., et al. 2019. Evaluation of Precipitation and Evapotranspiration Obtained by Remote Sensing With Meteorological Stations in the State of Goiás. J. Agric. Sci. 11: 4. 356-36.
19.Mu, Q., Heinsch, F.A., Zhao, M., and Running, S.W. 2007. Development of a global evapotranspiration algorithm based on MODIS and global meteorology data. Remote Sens Environ. 111: 4. 519-536.
20.Mu, Q., Zhao, M., and Running, S.W. 2011. Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm. Remote Sens. Environ. 115: 8. 1781-1800.
21.Nadzri, M.I., and Hashim, M. 2014. Validation of MODIS Data for Localized Spatio-Temporal Evapotranspiration Mapping. IOP Conference Series:Earth and Environmental Science.18: 1. 012183.
22.Pachauri, R.K., Allen, M.R., Barros, V.R., Broome J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., et al. 2014. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC 2014.
23.Priestley, C., and Taylor, R.J. 1972.On the Assessment of Surface HeatFlux and Evaporation Using Large- Scale Parameters. Mon. Weather Rev. 100: 2. 81-92.
24.Reyes-González, A., Kjaersgaard, J., Trooien, T., Hay, C., and Ahiablame,L. 2018. Estimation of Crop Evapotranspiration Using Satellite Remote Sensing-Based Vegetation Index. Adv. Meteorol. 2018: 1. 1-12.
25.Ruhoff, A.L., Paz, A.R., Aragao, L., Mu, Q., Malhi, Y., Collischonn, W.,et al. 2013. Assessment of the MODIS global evapotranspiration algorithm using eddy covariance measurements and hydrological modeling in theRio Grande basin. Hydrol. Sci. J.58: 8. 1658-1676.
26.Running, S.W., Mu, Q., Zhao, M., and Moreno, A. 2019. User’s Guide MODIS Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration (ET) Product (MOD16A2/A3 and Year-end Gap-filled MOD16A2GF/A3GF) NASA Earth Observing System MODIS Land Algorithm (For Collection 6).
27.Senay, G.B., Budde, M.E., and Verdin, J.P. 2010. Enhancing the Simplified Surface Energy Balance (SSEB) approach for estimating landscape ET: Validation with the METRIC model. Agric. Water Manag. 98: 4. 606-618.
28.Sullivan, R.C., Cook, D.R., Ghate, V.P., Kotamarthi, V.R., and Feng, Y. 2019. Improved spatiotemporal representativeness and bias reduction of satelliteā€based evapotranspiration retrievals via use of in situ meteorology and constrained canopy surface resistance. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124: 2. 342-352.
29.Westerhoff, R.S. 2015. Remote Sensing of Environment Using uncertainty of Penman and Penman – Monteith methods in combined satellite and ground-based evapotranspiration estimates. Remote Sens Environ.169: 102-112.
30.Willmott, C.J. 1984. On the Evaluation of Model Performance in Physical Geography. Spatial statistics and models. Springer, Dordrecht, Pp: 443-460.
31.Xu, T., Guo, Z., Xia, Y., Ferreira, V.G., Liu, S., Wang, K., Yao, Y., Zhang, X. and Zhao, C. 2019. Evaluation of twelve evapotranspiration products from machine learning, remote sensing,
and land surface models over the conterminous United States. J. Hydrol. 578: 12405.
32.Zhang, K., Kimball, J.S., and Running, S.W. 2016. A review of remote sensing based actual evapotranspiration estimation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water. 3: 6. 834-853.
33.Zhang, K., Zhu, G., Ma, J., Yang, Y., Shang, S., and Gu, C. 2019. Parameter Analysis and Estimates for the MODIS Evapotranspiration Algorithm and Multiscale Verification. Water Resour. Res. 55: 3. 2211-2231.