Please wait a minute...
IMAGE/TABLE DETAILS
Applicability of Evapotranspiration Simulation Models for Forest Ecosystems in Qianyanzhou
Ying Liu, Baozhang Chen, Jing Chen, Guang Xu
Chinese Bulletin of Botany    2016, 51 (2): 226-234.   DOI: 10.11983/CBB15055
Abstract   (1175 HTML2 PDF(pc) (24235KB)(1905)  

Using meteorological and evapotranspiration (ET) data acquired at the Eddy Covariance Flux tower in Qian- yanzhou, Jiangxi Province, for 2003 to 2007, we evaluated the applicability of 8 widely used evapotranspiration simulation models (Priestly-Taylor, Blaney-Criddle, Hargreaves-Samani, Jensen-Haise, Hamon, Turc, Makkink and Thornthwaite) for a forest ecosystem. Among these 8 models, the Priestly-Taylor model was the best (R=0.953) on a daily time scale, the Makkink model was the best (R=0.995) on a monthly scale, and the Thornthwaite model was the worst on a monthly scale (RMSE=15.559, MBE=13.436). The Jensen-Haise model failed in simulation of ET on both day and month scales. Partial correlation analysis of simulated ET against meteorological factors showed that the order of factors contributing to ET for the forest ecosystem was radiation>air temperature>surface pressure>wind speed>soil temperature>relative humidity>daytime length. Radiation was the most important driving factor for ET, which is consistent with the performance of radiation-based ET models (e.g., the Priestly-Taylor and Makkink models) being better than other models.


Coefficient Obs Model
P-T B-C H-S J-H Ham Tu Ma Th
Sd 33.337 34.987 33.174 34.383 36.171 33.158 33.962 33.165 48.385
Mean 68.045 65.514 66.629 64.011 63.319 65.891 66.078 66.701 64.885
CV (%) 48.992 57.858 49.790 53.714 57.125 50.322 51.397 49.722 74.570
Table 4 Monthly change of evapotranspiration (ET) observation and ET simulation of years (mm·m-1)
Other Images/Table from this Article