Remote Sensing and Aerodynamic Temperature-Based Energy Balance Models to Estimate Crop Evapotranspiration Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different methods exist to measure or estimate actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa). However, some methods require a large number of data input or strict field conditions. Remote sensing based ETa algorithms based on extreme thermal pixels (hot and cold) have limitations when required extreme pixels are not present in the acquired thermal infra-red imagery. In addition, satellite overpass frequency and spatial pixel resolution may be a limitation for some agricultural fields and micro-climates. Surface energy balance methods that use surface radiometric temperatures often fail to perform well under drought, limited irrigation, salt affected soils, or under sparse vegetation conditions. One option is to measure or estimate the crop/surface sensible heat flux through the aerodynamic temperature approach, then calculate the available energy and solve the energy balance for latent heat flux. Thus, this study presents different published algorithms that characterize the crop or field surface aerodynamic temperature and then applies them to different conditions for evaluation. Determining spatial ETa continuously has the potential to improve the irrigation water management decision making. The aerodynamic temperature approach was initially developed with good results as a function of surface radiometric temperature, air temperature, crop leaf area index, and wind speed or surface aerodynamic resistance. However, the inclusion of the crop fractional percent cover and of a new resistance term (turbulent-mixing row resistance) greatly improved the estimation of the sensible heat and latent heat fluxes, when evaluated with heat flux data derived from eddy covariance energy balance towers. Results also indicate that the aerodynamic method has transferability potential to different regions, crops, and irrigation methods than the conditions encountered in the method development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".