Effects of Distinguishing Vegetation Types on the Estimates of Remotely Sensed Evapotranspiration in Arid Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimates of evapotranspiration (ET) in arid ecosystems are important for sustainable water resource management due to competing water demands between human and ecological environments. Several empirical remotely sensed ET models have been constructed and their potential for regional scale ET estimation in arid ecosystems has been demonstrated. Generally, these models were built using combined measured ET and corresponding remotely sensed and meteorological data from diverse sites. However, there are usually different vegetation types or mixed vegetation types in these sites, and little information is available on the estimation uncertainty of these models induced by combining different vegetation types from diverse sites. In this study, we employed the most popular one of these models and recalibrated it using datasets from two typical vegetation types (shrub Tamarix ramosissima and arbor Populus euphratica) in arid ecosystems of northwestern China. The recalibration was performed in the following two ways: using combined datasets from the two vegetation types, and using a single dataset from specific vegetation type. By comparing the performance of the two methods in ET estimation for Tamarix ramosissima and Populus euphratica, we investigated and compared the accuracy of ET estimation at the site scale and the difference in annual ET estimation at the regional scale. The results showed that the estimation accuracy of daily, monthly, and yearly ET was improved by distinguishing the vegetation types. The method based on the combined vegetation types had a great influence on the estimation accuracy of annual ET, which overestimated annual ET about 9.19% for Tamarix ramosissima and underestimated annual ET about 11.50% for Populus euphratica. Furthermore, substantial difference in annual ET estimation at regional scale was found between the two methods. The higher the vegetation coverage, the greater the difference in annual ET. Our results provide valuable information on evaluating the estimation accuracy of regional scale ET using empirical remotely sensed ET models for arid ecosystems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".