不同下垫面DTD模型与TSEB模型比较

doi:10.12082/dqxxkx.2020.190592

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

双源能量平衡模型（Two Source Energy Balance, TSEB）和双温度差模型（Dual Temperature Difference, DTD）目前已应用于不同的下垫面类型和环境条件下地表蒸散发估算研究,但是由于模型构建理论机理的差异,模型表现会随着下垫面类型和环境条件的变化而有所不同。因此,本研究选取了黑河流域高寒草地、半干旱区灌溉农田以及干旱区河岸林3种下垫面类型地面观测数据,系统分析了DTD模型和TSEB模型的适用性以及主要误差来源。结果表明:① 在瞬时尺度上,DTD模型在高寒草地上估算潜热通量的误差较小,其RMSE为62.00 W/m²,而TSEB模型的RMSE为75.49 W/m²,2个模型的精度会随着植被覆盖度的增加而出现差异;在半干旱区灌溉农田区域,2种模型表现较为一致,但是在干旱区河岸林,2种模型都低估了潜热通量,且模型误差较大;② 在日尺度上,DTD模型和TSEB模型的表现与瞬时尺度表现较为一致,同时2种模型拆分的植被蒸腾比与基于uWUE模型（Water Use Efficiency, uWUE）拆分的结果吻合较好,但DTD模型的表现要优于TSEB模型;③ 相比较DTD模型而言,TSEB模型对地表温度输入误差更为敏感。本研究通过对比DTD模型和TSEB模型在不同下垫面和环境条件的表现,为今后模型优化提供了理论依据。

关键词: DTD模型, TSEB模型, 下垫面类型, 地表蒸散发, 植被蒸腾, 土壤蒸发, 地表温度, 真实性检验

Abstract:

Operational application of an appropriate model to estimate evapotranspiration (ET) and the components evaporation (E), transpiration (T) at a range of space and time scales is very useful for managing water resources. The Two Source Energy Balance (TSEB) and Dual Temperature Difference (DTD) models have been applied to estimate land surface evapotranspiration under various landcover types and environment conditions. The DTD model requires twice radiometric temperature observations as inputs while the TSEB model only use single observation. This may reduce the uncertainty of DTD model which introduced from the observation or remotely sensed based radiometric temperatures. However, the two models may perform inconsistent under various land surface, which mainly associated with the different theoretical mechanisms in the models. In this study, the two models were evaluated using the long time ground observation data collected from three total different landcover types and environment conditions, including alpine grassland, semi-arid irrigated farmland and arid riparian forest in Heihe River Basin in Northwest China. The results showed that the latent heat flux estimated by the DTD model had a better agreement with half an hour ground measurements at the alpine grassland site, with the RMSE value of 62.00 W/m^2, while TSEB model showed a higher RMSE value of 75.49 W/m². But the performance of the two models was associated with the variation of the vegetation coverage. While, in the semi-arid farmland site, the performances of two models were more consistent where they produced a closer RMSE values, but in the arid riparian forest site, both of the models significantly underestimated the latent heat flux. The DTD model showed a worse agreement with the ground measurements in both sensible and latent heat fluxes. The DTD modeled latent heat flux had a higher RMSE values of 136.74 W/m² where the TSEB model had a RMSE value of 86.40 W/m². The better agreement of the TSEB model latent heat fluxes may associate with greater underestimation of modeled sensible heat flux which can partly compensate underestimation of net radiation. However, at the daily scale the performances of the DTD model and TSEB model were more similar. Additionally, the ratio of plant transpiration to evapotranspiration partitioned by the two models were in good agreement with results simulated from water use efficiency (uWUE) model with ground measurements, while the DTD model also performed better than the TSEB model. Finally, the TSEB model was more sensitive to the model input of land surface temperature. Therefore how to improve the accuracy of remote sense land surface temperature products is vital to the model application. Meanwhile, future researches can focus on optimizing model for extending applications over heterogeneous surface and different meteorological conditions.

Key words: DTD model, TSEB model, landcovers, evapotranspiration, transpiration, evaporation, land surface temperature, validation

丁忠昊, 宋立生, 徐同仁, 白岩, 刘绍民, 马明国, 徐自为. 不同下垫面DTD模型与TSEB模型比较[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2020, 22(11): 2152-2165.DOI:10.12082/dqxxkx.2020.190592

DING Zhonghao, SONG Lisheng, XU Tongren, BAI Yan, LIU Shaomin, MA Mingguo, XU Ziwei. Evaluating Two Source Energy Balance and Dual Temperature Difference Models under Various Landcovers and Environment Conditions[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2020, 22(11): 2152-2165.DOI:10.12082/dqxxkx.2020.190592

图/表 11

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

图4

图5

表3

图6

图7

图8

参考文献 46

[1]	Jung M, Reichstein M, Ciais P, et al. Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply[J]. Nature, 2010,467(7318):951-954. pmid: 20935626
[2]	Fensholt R, Langanke T, Rasmussen K, et al. Greenness in semi-arid areas across the globe 1981-2007 an Earth Observing Satellite based analysis of trends and drivers[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2012,121:144-158.
[3]	García M, Sandholt I, Ceccato P, et al. Actual evapotranspiration in drylands derived from in-situ and satellite data: Assessing biophysical constraints[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2013,131(8):103-118.
[4]	Dinpashoh Y. Study of reference crop evapotranspiration in I.R. of Iran[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2006,84(1-2):123-129.
[5]	Norman J M, Kustas W P, Humes K S. Source approach for estimating soil and vegetation energy fluxes in observations of directional radiometric surface temperature[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 1995,77(3-4):263-293.
[6]	Kustas W P, Norman J M. Evaluation of soil and vegetation heat flux predictions using a simple two-source model with radiometric temperatures for partial canopy cover[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 1999,94(1):13-29.
[7]	Long D, Singh V P. A Two-source Trapezoid Model for Evapotranspiration (TTME) from satellite imagery[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2012,121:370-388.
[8]	Song L S, Kustas W P, Liu S M, et al. Applications of a thermal-based two-source energy balance model using Priestley-Taylor approach for surface temperature partitioning under advective conditions[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2016,540:574-587.
[9]	Norman J M, Anderson M C, Kustas W P, et al. Remote sensing of surface energy fluxes at 101-m pixel resolutions[J]. Water Resources Research, 2003,39(8):278-294.
[10]	Song L S, Liu S M, Kustas W P, et al. Monitoring and validating spatially and temporally continuous daily evaporation and transpiration at river basin scale[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2018,219:72-88.
[11]	Seneviratne S I, Corti T, Davin E L, et al. Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: A review[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2010,99(3-4):125-161.
[12]	Newman B D, Wilcox B P, Archer S R, et al. Ecohydrology of water-limited environments: A scientific vision[J]. Water Resources Research, 2006,42(6):1-15.
[13]	宋立生, 刘绍民, 徐同仁, 等. 土壤蒸发和植被蒸腾遥感估算与验证[J]. 遥感学报, 2017,21(6):966-981.
	[ Song L S, Liu S M, Xu T R, et al. Soil evaporation and vegetation transpiration: Remotely sensed estimation and validation[J]. Journal of Remote Sensing, 2017,21(6):966-981. ]
[14]	Lian X, Piao S L, Hunting ford C, et al. Partitioning global land evapotranspiration using CMIP5 models constrained by observations[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2018,8(7):640-646.
[15]	Kool D, Agam N, Lazarovitch N, et al. A review of approaches for evapotranspiration partitioning[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2014,184:56-70.
[16]	Agam N, Evett S R, Tolk J A, et al. Evaporative loss from irrigated interrows in a highly advective semi-arid agricultural area[J]. Advances in Water Resources, 2012,50:20-30.
[17]	Zhou S, Yu B F, Huang Y F, et al. The effect of vapor pressure deficit on water use efficiency at the subdaily time scale[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2014,41(14):5005-5013.
[18]	Zhou S, Yu B F, Zhang Y, et al. Partitioning evapotranspiration based on the concept of underlying water use efficiency[J]. Water Resources Research, 2016,52(2):1160-1175.
[19]	Bai Y, Li X Y, Zhou S, et al. Quantifying plant transpiration and canopy conductance using eddy flux data: An underlying water use efficiency method[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2019,271:375-384.
[20]	Colaizzi P D, Evett S R, Howell T A, et al. Radiation model for row crops: I. Geometric view factors and parameter optimization[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2012,104(2):225-240.
[21]	Song L S, Liu S M, Kustas W P, et al. Application of remote sensing-based two-source energy balance model for mapping field surface fluxes with composite and component surface temperatures[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2016, 230-231:8-19.
[22]	Kustas W P, Daughtry C S T. Estimation of the soil heat-flux net-radiation ratio from spectral data[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 1990,49(3):205-223.
[23]	Santanello J A, Friedl M A. Diurnal covariation in soil heat flux and net radiation[J]. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 2003,42(6):851-862.
[24]	Brutsaert W. Stability correction functions for the mean wind-speed and temperature in the unstable surface-layer[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 1992,19(5):469-472. doi: 10.1029/92GL00084
[25]	Kondol J, Ishida S. Sensible heat flux from the earth’s surface under natural convective conditions[J]. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1997,54(4):498-509.
[26]	Sauer T J, Norman J M, Tanner C B. Measurement of heat and vapor transfer coefficients at the soil surface beneath a maize canopy using source plates[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 1995,75(1-3):161-189.
[27]	Norman J M, Kustas W P, Prueger J H, et al. Surface flux estimation using radiometric temperature: A Dual-Temperature-Difference method to minimize measurement errors[J]. Water Resources Research, 2000,36(8):2263-2274.
[28]	Ashktorab H, Pruitt W O, Paw U K T. Partitioning of evapotranspiration using lysimeter and micro-bowen-ratio system[J]. Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering, 1994,120(2):450-464.
[29]	Wang L X, Caylor K K, Villegas J C, et al. Partitioning evapotranspiration across gradients of woody plant cover: Assessment of a stable isotope technique[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2010,37(9):L09401.
[30]	Williams D G, Cable W, Hultine K, et al. Evapotranspiration components determined by stable isotope, sap flow and eddy covariance techniques[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2004,125(3-4):241-258.
[31]	Miralles D G, Gash J H, Holmes T R H, et al. Global canopy interception from satellite observations[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010,115:D16122.
[32]	Liu S M, Li X, Xu Z W, et al. The Heihe integrated observatory network: A basin-scale land surface processes observatory in China[J]. Vadose Zone Journal, 2018,17(1):180072.
[33]	Xu T R, Guo Z X, Liu S M, et al. Evaluating different machine learning methods for upscaling evapotranspiration from flux towers to the regional scale[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2018,123(16):8674-8690.
[34]	Liu S M, Xu Z W, Wang W Z, et al. A comparison of eddy-covariance and large aperture scintillometer measurements with respect to the energy balance closure problem[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2011,15(4):1291-1306.
[35]	Li X, Cheng G D, Liu S M, et al. Heihe Watershed Allied Telemetry Experimental Research (HiWATER): Scientific objectives and experimental design[J]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2013,94(8):1145-1160.
[36]	Zhou S, Yu B F, Zhang Y, et al. Water use efficiency and evapotranspiration partitioning for three typical ecosystems in the Heihe River Basin, northwestern China[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2018, 253-254:261-273.
[37]	Wu B F, Xing Q, Yan N N, et al. A linear relationship between temporal multiband MODIS BRDF and aerodynamic roughness in HiWATER wind gradient data[J]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2015,12(3):507-511.
[38]	Xu F N, Wang W Z, Wang J M, et al. Aggregation of area-averaged evapotranspiration over the Ejina Oasis based on a flux matrix and footprint analysis[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2019,575:17-30.
[39]	Wohlfahrt G, Haslwanter A, Hortnagl L, et al. On the consequences of the energy imbalance for calculating surface conductance to water vapour[J]. Agriculturaland Forest Meteorology, 2009,149(9):1556-1559.
[40]	Timmermans W J, Kustas W P, Anderson M C, et al. An intercomparison of the Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land (SEBAL) and the Two-Source Energy Balance (TSEB) modeling schemes[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2007,108(4):369-384.
[41]	Kalma J D, McVicar T R, McCabe M F. Estimating land surface evaporation: A review of methods using remotely sensed surface temperature data[J]. Surveys in Geophysics, 2008,29(4):421-469.
[42]	Cammalleri C, Anderson M C, Ciraolo G, et al. Applications of a remote sensing-based two-source energy balance algorithm for mapping surface fluxes without in situ air temperature observations[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2012,124:502-515.
[43]	Kustas W P, Anderson M C. Advances in thermal infrared remote sensing for land surface modeling[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2009,149(12):2071-2081.
[44]	Xu T R, Bateni S M, Margulis S A, et al. Partitioning evapotranspiration intosoil evaporation and canopy transpiration via a two-source variational data assimilation system[J]. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 2016,17(9):2353-2370.
[45]	French A N, Hunsaker D J, Thorp K R. Remote sensing of evapotranspiration over cotton using the TSEB and METRIC energy balance models[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2015,158:281-294.
[46]	Li M S, Zhou J, Peng Z X, et al. Component radiative temperatures over sparsely vegetated surfaces and their potential for upscaling land surface temperature[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2019, 276-277:107600.

站点名称	经纬度	观测时间/年	下垫面类型	海拔/m
阿柔站	100.46° E, 38.05° N	2013—2017	高寒草地	3033
大满站	100.37° E, 38.86° N	2013—2017	玉米	1556
四道桥站	101.14° E, 42.00° N	2014—2017	柽柳、胡杨	873

站点	通量分量	DTD模型			TSEB模型
站点	通量分量	标准偏差/ （W/m²）	平均绝对值百分误差	均方根误差/ （W/m²）	标准偏差/ （W/m²）	平均绝对值百分误差	均方根误差/ （W/m²）
阿柔站	Rn	-10.80	0.15	68.71	5.37	0.16	71.13
	G₀	49.62	2.04	64.10	48.93	2.00	63.45
	H	-47.15	0.47	72.89	-44.66	0.52	79.78
	LE	-13.27	0.30	62.00	1.10	0.38	75.49
大满站	Rn	-23.20	0.12	53.92	-18.18	0.12	50.86
	G₀	19.18	0.70	46.97	18.65	0.70	46.43
	H	-35.89	0.53	63.96	-27.64	0.52	62.23
	LE	-6.48	0.26	56.36	-9.20	0.27	59.24
四道桥站	Rn	-38.62	0.13	62.02	-33.48	0.12	55.29
	G₀	43.47	0.94	60.35	39.79	0.90	57.43
	H	-37.23	0.68	137.70	-70.25	0.54	112.52
	LE	-44.86	0.79	136.74	-3.03	0.50	86.40

站点	DTD模型			TSEB模型
站点	偏差/mm	平均绝对值百分比误差	均方根误差/mm	偏差/mm	平均绝对值百分比误差	均方根误差/mm
阿柔站	-0.27	0.24	0.51	-0.11	0.33	0.63
大满站	0.02	0.25	0.62	0.05	0.27	0.66
四道桥站	-0.26	0.74	1.32	0.21	0.56	0.90