Mapping Vegetation Index-Derived Actual Evapotranspiration across Croplands Using the Google Earth Engine Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precise knowledge of crop water consumption is essential to better manage agricultural water use, particularly in regions where most countries struggle with increasing water and food insecurity. Approaches such as cloud computing and remote sensing (RS) have facilitated access, process, and visualization of big geospatial data to map and monitor crop water requirements. To find the most reliable Vegetation Index (VI)-based evapotranspiration (ETa) for croplands in drylands, we modeled and mapped ETa using empirical RS methods across the Zayandehrud river basin in Iran for two decades (2000–2019) on the Google Earth Engine platform using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and the Enhanced Vegetation Index 2 (EVI2). Developed ET-VI products in this study comprise three NDVI-based ETa (ET-NDVI*, ET-NDVI*scaled, and ET-NDVIKc) and an EVI2-based ETa (ET-EVI2). We (a) applied, for the first time, the ET-NDVI* method to croplands as a crop-independent index and then compared its performance with the ET-EVI2 and crop ET, and (b) assessed the ease and feasibility of the transferability of these methods to other regions. Comparing four ET-VI products showed that annual ET-EVI2 and ET-NDVI*scaled estimations were close. ET-NDVIKc consistently overestimated ETa. Our findings indicate that ET-EVI2 and ET-NDVIKc were easy to parametrize and adopt to other regions, while ET-NDVI* and ET-NDVI*scaled are site-dependent and sensitive to image acquisition time. ET-EVI2 performed robustly in arid and semi-arid regions making it a better tool. Future research should further develop and confirm these findings by characterizing the accuracy of VI-based ETa over croplands in drylands by comparing them with available ETa products and examining their performance using crop-specific comparisons.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".