MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4238978387 · doi:10.5194/hess-2019-409

Evaluation of global terrestrial evapotranspiration by state-of-the-art approaches in remote sensing, machine learning, and land surface models

2019· preprint· en· W4238978387 on OpenAlexaff
Shufen Pan, Naiqing Pan, Hanqin Tian, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Hao Shi, Vivek K. Arora, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Catherine Ottlé, Benjamin Poulter, Sönke Zaehle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersEuropean CommissionAuburn UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEvapotranspirationWater cycleEnvironmental scienceAridRemote sensingPrecipitationTerrestrial ecosystemNorthern HemisphereCarbon cycleMeteorologyClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesGeographyEcosystemGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Evapotranspiration (ET) is a critical component in global water cycle and links terrestrial water, carbon and energy cycles. Accurate estimate of terrestrial ET is important for hydrological, meteorological, and agricultural research and applications, such as quantifying surface energy and water budgets, weather forecasting, and scheduling of irrigation. However, direct measurement of global terrestrial ET is not feasible. Here, we first gave a retrospective introduction to the basic theory and recent developments of state-of-the-art approaches for estimating global terrestrial ET, including remote sensing-based physical models, machine learning algorithms and land surface models (LSMs). Then, we utilized six remote sensing-based models (including four physical models and two machine learning algorithms) and fourteen LSMs to analyze the spatial and temporal variations in global terrestrial ET. The results showed that the mean annual global terrestrial ET ranged from 50.7 × 103 km3 yr−1(454 mm yr−1)to 75.7 × 103 km3 yr−1 (6977 mm yr−1), with the average being 65.5 × 103 km3 yr−1 (588 mm yr−1), during 1982–2011. LSMs had significant uncertainty in the ET magnitude in tropical regions especially the Amazon Basin, while remote sensing-based ET products showed larger inter-model range in arid and semi-arid regions than LSMs. LSMs and remote sensing-based physical models presented much larger inter-annual variability (IAV) of ET than machine learning algorithms in southwestern U.S. and the Southern Hemisphere, particularly in Australia. LSMs suggested stronger control of precipitation on ET IAV than remote sensing-based models. The ensemble remote sensing-based physical models and machine-learning algorithm suggested significant increasing trends in global terrestrial ET at the rate of 0.62 mm yr−2 (p 0.05), even though most of the individual LSMs reproduced the increasing trend. Moreover, all models suggested a positive effect of vegetation greening on ET intensification. Spatially, all methods showed that ET significantly increased in western and southern Africa, western India and northeastern Australia, but decreased severely in southwestern U.S., southern South America and Mongolia. Discrepancies in ET trend mainly appeared in tropical regions like the Amazon Basin. The ensemble means of the three ET categories showed generally good consistency, however, considerable uncertainties still exist in both the temporal and spatial variations in global ET estimates. The uncertainties were induced by multiple factors, including parameterization of land processes, meteorological forcing, lack of in situ measurements, remote sensing acquisition and scaling effects. Improvements in the representation of water stress and canopy dynamics are essentially needed to reduce uncertainty in LSM-simulated ET. Utilization of latest satellite sensors and deep learning methods, theoretical advancements in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and application of integrated methods that fuse different ET estimates or relevant key biophysical variables will improve the accuracy of remote sensing-based models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→