Estimation of Potential Evapotranspiration across Sri Lanka Using a Distributed Dual-Source Evapotranspiration Model under Data Scarcity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evapotranspiration estimations are not common in developing countries though most of them have water scarcities for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it is essential to estimate the rates of evapotranspiration based on the available climatic parameters. Proper estimations of evapotranspiration are unavailable to Sri Lanka, even though the country has a significant agricultural contribution to its economy. Therefore, the Shuttleworth–Wallace (S-W) model, a process-based two-source potential evapotranspiration (PET) model, is implemented to simulate the spatiotemporal distribution of PET, evaporation from soil (ETs), and transpiration from vegetation canopy (ETc) across the total landmass of Sri Lanka. The country was divided into a grid with <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mn>6</a:mn> <a:mi>k</a:mi> <a:mi>m</a:mi> <a:mo>×</a:mo> <a:mn>6</a:mn> <a:mi>k</a:mi> <a:mi>m</a:mi> </a:math> cells. The meteorological data, including rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, net solar radiation, and pan evaporation, for 14 meteorological stations were used in this analysis. They were interpolated using Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), Universal kriging, and Thiessen polygon methods as appropriate so that the generated thematic layers were fairly closer to reality. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and soil moisture data were retrieved from publicly available online domains, while the threshold values of vegetation parameters were taken from the literature. Notwithstanding many approximations and uncertainties associated with the input data, the implemented model displayed an adequate ability to capture the spatiotemporal distribution of PET and its components. A comparison between predicted PET and recorded pan evaporations resulted in a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.75 mm/day. The model showed high sensitivity to Leaf Area Index (LAI). The model revealed that both spatial and temporal distribution of PET is highly correlated with the incoming solar radiation fluxes and affected by the rainfall seasons and cultivation patterns. The model predicted PET values accounted for 80–90% and 40–60% loss of annual mean rainfall, respectively, in the drier and wetter parts of the country. The model predicted a 0.65 ratio of annual transpiration to annual evapotranspiration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".