Evapotranspiration (ET) is one of the most important components of the hydrological cycle, but it is often the most difficult variable to determine at basin scale. Traditionally, ET is estimated using point-based measurements collected at meteorological stations, but the non-spatial nature of these measurements often leads to significant errors when utilized at watershed scale. In this study, the METRIC (mapping evapotranspiration at high resolution with internalized calibration) approach was evaluated using remotely sensed observations from the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer sensor and data from meteorological stations in the lower catchment of the Buyuk Menderes Basin in western Turkey in the form of actual ET maps at daily and monthly intervals between 1st April and 30th September 2010. The energy fluxes and daily ET maps resulting from METRIC were compared with ET data estimated with the help of meteorological parameters. These results were found to be compatible with the ground-based estimations which suggest considerable potential for the METRIC model for estimating spatially distributed actual ET values with little ground-based weather data.
INTRODUCTION
Evapotranspiration (ET) is an important component of the Earth's water and energy cycles. For example, average annual evapotranspiration from the global land surface is around 60 to 65% of precipitation (Baumgartner & Reichel 1975). Estimation of actual ET is also crucial for hydrologic modeling, water and irrigation planning, management, drought assessment, water rights, aquifer recharge assessment, and many other areas. One of the main parameters for the determination of water needs for irrigation is actual ET. For this reason, estimation of actual ET provides very valuable information for the effective management of irrigation. Evapotranspiration is also crucial for the energy cycle. More than half of the solar energy absorbed by land surfaces is currently used to evaporate water (Trenberth et al. 2009), significantly affecting the Earth's climate.
The methods for estimating basin-wide ET are generally grouped into three categories: the water budget approach, meteorological estimate, and remote sensing of the land–atmosphere interface. Hydrological methods such as Thornthwaite & Matter (1955) and Grindley (1969) utilize an accounting approach where inflow, outflow, and change in storage are used in the water budget. Meteorological methods are based mainly on temperature and radiation data. Formulations proposed by Turc (1961) and Thornthwaite (1948) are commonly used by hydrology practitioners. Agro-meteorological methods use potential ET data as a reference, and crop coefficients are multiplied according to crop type and crop stage (Penman 1948). Remote sensing-based ET methods utilize the energy budget concept and generally provide accurate and spatially explicit estimates of ET (Allen et al. 2005).
The first two methods can be identified as conventional techniques and use point-based hydrometeorological data. However, with proper adaptations to use remote sensing data, conventional methods such as Monteith (1965) and Priestley & Taylor (1972) are also widely applied in a spatially distributed manner (e.g., Vinukollu et al. (2011), Miralles et al. (2011), among others). The spatial variation of the parameters affecting the ET process is so high that uncertainty increases with the increasing scale of hydrological basins. To this end, remote sensing techniques provide large and continuous spatial coverage and are applicable especially for large areas. Moreover, remote sensing techniques are advantageous over point-based methods for estimating ET from crop coefficients or vegetation indices in that neither crop development stages nor specific crop types need to be known (Allen et al. 2011). The use of remote sensing data in ET models (both conventional or energy balance models) enables the spatial distribution of ET over large areas.
Remote sensing-based ET algorithms are based on the rationale where available energy in the environment is used for the vaporization process (Su 2002). Along with other surface parameters such as leaf area index (LAI), surface albedo, surface emissivity and radiometric surface temperature – also derived from remote sensing – and surface meteorological variables, remote sensing algorithms are capable of estimating ET on local, regional, and global scales. Generally known as the energy budget methods, these algorithms use physical and empirical relations together to estimate ET as the residual of the land surface energy budget equation. There are many models based on residual methods, such as SEBAL (Bastiaanssen et al. 1998a, 1998b), SEBI (Menenti & Choudhury 1993), SEBS (Su 2002), mapping evapotranspiration at high resolution with internalized calibration (METRIC) (Allen et al. 2007a, 2007b), and S-SEBI (Roerink et al. 2000).
Many studies have tested the performance of the METRIC model at various scales. Gowda et al. (2008) evaluated the performance of the METRIC model in Texas plains using Landsat 5 TM data and found good correlation with ET estimations based on the soil water budget model. Choi et al. (2009) conducted a comparison of the two-source energy balance (TSEB) model, METRIC, trapezoid interpolation model, METRIC, and TSEB models, and consequently, found relatively good agreement between models for Rn and G but greater disagreement for H and LE between models and also among the observation data. Gonzalez-Dugo et al. (2009) compared METRIC and TSM models and underlined the requirement of models for accurate surface temperature input. Singh & Senay (2016) found that estimated daily ET for both cropland and grassland had some degree of linearity with METRIC, SEBAL, and SEBS. Paul et al. (2013) showed the sensitivity of SEBAL to excess resistance to heat transfer parameter (kB-1). Paul et al. (2014) underlined the importance of hot and cold pixel selection, and proposed spatial and temporal adoption of kB-1 variable for better model performance. ET models have strengths and limitations for applications in water resource management. In this study, we used the METRIC algorithm to calculate ET using moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) remotely sensed images and ground-based meteorological observations on cloud-free days. METRIC is a variant of SEBAL, which incorporates autocalibration procedures by ground-based reference ET and uses evaporative fraction to extrapolate ET in image time to daily scales in order to lessen regional advection differences (Allen et al. 2011). In the study hourly, daily, and monthly values of ET were calculated for the study area. Further, the effect of spatio-temporal change on the ET values was evaluated. Inter-comparison of the model results was made by ET values calculated by the Penman–Monteith equation ASCE version in an experimental area covered with olive orchards in the study area. The main objective of this study was to assess the capability of remote sensing-based ET estimation via the METRIC model in the lower part of the Buyuk Menderes River Basin in western Turkey. The ET maps produced as outputs are planned to be used in the assessment of irrigation planning studies.
STUDY AREA
METHODOLOGY
Data
Meteorological data required by the surface energy balance model include minimum, maximum, and average temperatures, actual vapor pressure, pan evaporation (class A-pan), wind speed, air temperature, and cloudiness. The data are based on hourly and daily time scales. In this study, the observations from six meteorological stations located in and around the study area were used.
MODIS products
MODIS standard products . | Parameter . | Spatial resolution . | Temporal resolution . |
---|---|---|---|
MOD13A2 | Vegetation indices (NDVI) | 1,000 m | 16 days |
MOD15A2 | Leaf area index (LAI) | 1,000 m | 8 days |
MOD11A1 | Land surface temperature and emissivity | 1,000 m | Daily |
MOD09GA | Surface reflectance | 1,000 m | Daily |
MOD35L2 | Cloud mask | 1,000 m | Daily |
MODIS standard products . | Parameter . | Spatial resolution . | Temporal resolution . |
---|---|---|---|
MOD13A2 | Vegetation indices (NDVI) | 1,000 m | 16 days |
MOD15A2 | Leaf area index (LAI) | 1,000 m | 8 days |
MOD11A1 | Land surface temperature and emissivity | 1,000 m | Daily |
MOD09GA | Surface reflectance | 1,000 m | Daily |
MOD35L2 | Cloud mask | 1,000 m | Daily |
Since clouds have negative effects on the detection of reflectivity from the Earth's surface, cloud-free days for the study area were determined by the evaluation of the cloudiness data obtained from meteorological stations for the satellite passing times as well as with the help of the MODIS cloud mask product.
Model description
Processed image dates
Date (year: 2010) . | Julian days . | Date . | Julian days . |
---|---|---|---|
23 April | 113 | 14 July | 195 |
3 May | 123 | 2 August | 214 |
14 May | 134 | 17 August | 229 |
30 May | 150 | 29 August | 241 |
15 June | 166 | 11 September | 254 |
2 July | 183 |
Date (year: 2010) . | Julian days . | Date . | Julian days . |
---|---|---|---|
23 April | 113 | 14 July | 195 |
3 May | 123 | 2 August | 214 |
14 May | 134 | 17 August | 229 |
30 May | 150 | 29 August | 241 |
15 June | 166 | 11 September | 254 |
2 July | 183 |
As there is no direct measurement of ET over the study area, the method used by Jia et al. (2009) in the case of the Yellow River Basin in China was used for the inter-comparison process. Jia et al. (2009) proposed an alternative method to make comparisons with modeled and observed data. In their method, ET was estimated by multiplying the reference ET derived from the Penman–Monteith equation by the crop coefficients. In this study, reference evaporation estimation calculated by the Penman–Monteith ASCE version was used to make comparison with the METRIC ET outputs. Converting the reference ET to actual ET was made by the crop coefficient for olive trees. Pastor & Orgaz (1994) determined the crop coefficient (Kc) values of olive trees on a monthly basis for the area, 60% of which is covered with olive trees (Table 3). For inter-comparison purposes, 10 points covered with olive trees in the study area were chosen.
Crop coefficients for olive orchard (Pastor & Orgaz 1994)
Months . | Kc coefficients . | Months . | Kc coefficients . |
---|---|---|---|
January | 0.5 | July | 0.45 |
February | 0.5 | August | 0.45 |
March | 0.65 | September | 0.55 |
April | 0.60 | October | 0.60 |
May | 0.55 | November | 0.65 |
June | 0.50 | December | 0.50 |
Months . | Kc coefficients . | Months . | Kc coefficients . |
---|---|---|---|
January | 0.5 | July | 0.45 |
February | 0.5 | August | 0.45 |
March | 0.65 | September | 0.55 |
April | 0.60 | October | 0.60 |
May | 0.55 | November | 0.65 |
June | 0.50 | December | 0.50 |
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, a remote sensing algorithm, METRIC, was applied to estimate basin-wide actual ET in the lower part of the Buyuk Menderes Basin in Western Turkey. The spatial distribution of actual evapotranspiration for the cotton growing season was mapped at daily and monthly time steps. The model results were validated by comparing remote sensing estimates to ground-based actual ET estimations calculated with the help of the Penman–Monteith equation adjusted by coefficients on olive orchards.
Comparision between METRIC and ground-based estimations for inter-comparison points (1:1 scale).
Comparision between METRIC and ground-based estimations for inter-comparison points (1:1 scale).
The major land cover types in the study area are agriculture (50%), forest and semi-natural lands (46%), the remainder being water and wetlands (3%) and artificial areas (1%). It was found that open water bodies have the highest ET values followed by agricultural areas due to large-scale irrigation. The areas of the land cover categories and the corresponding amount of water consumption estimated in this study are given in Table 4. As shown, the water consumption in the study area is dominated by agricultural and forest/semi-natural lands which cover the majority of the landscape (94.8%), and the ET rate of these areas accounts for over 92% of total consumption during the study period. Agricultural lands (49.4%) have the highest consumption (50.4%) as regards to the integrated impact of land coverage on the ET rate.
Land use and monthly ET
Land cover type . | Area (km2) . | Months . | Total ET (mm) . | Mean (mm) . | Standard deviation . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agricultural lands | 1,757.7 | April | 176,064.0 | 95.9 | 26.8 |
May | 209,312.1 | 113.8 | 33.1 | ||
June | 232,404.6 | 126.0 | 32.2 | ||
July | 302,526.2 | 162.5 | 48.6 | ||
August | 196,126.0 | 104.8 | 32.0 | ||
September | 111,855.3 | 84.9 | 44.4 | ||
Forest and semi-natural lands | 1,615.8 | April | 148,655.0 | 90.4 | 35.5 |
May | 167,255.9 | 102.9 | 46.2 | ||
June | 188,299.9 | 114.2 | 49.1 | ||
July | 218,578.0 | 132.8 | 66.9 | ||
August | 198,516.7 | 114.6 | 42.8 | ||
September | 105,428.0 | 65.7 | 53.4 | ||
Wetlands | 3.1 | April | 229.6 | 57.5 | 37.3 |
May | 248.5 | 62.1 | 40.4 | ||
June | 414.4 | 103.6 | 20.0 | ||
July | 758.9 | 189.7 | 25.0 | ||
August | 663.8 | 166.0 | 21.1 | ||
September | 482.2 | 120.6 | 38.9 | ||
Water bodies | 75.7 | April | 12,108.4 | 126.1 | 32.1 |
May | 15,966.6 | 164.6 | 47.5 | ||
June | 17,782.5 | 183.3 | 40.0 | ||
July | 22,385.3 | 228.4 | 40.0 | ||
August | 18,510.4 | 210.3 | 38.8 | ||
September | 14,140.2 | 148.8 | 31.5 | ||
Artificial areas | 105.1 | April | 10,257.7 | 71.2 | 39.0 |
May | 13,441.4 | 87.3 | 50.1 | ||
June | 14.822.3 | 98.2 | 50.5 | ||
July | 18,145.3 | 121.8 | 58.5 | ||
August | 16,301.7 | 91.1 | 37.5 | ||
September | 6,844.1 | 54.8 | 45.7 |
Land cover type . | Area (km2) . | Months . | Total ET (mm) . | Mean (mm) . | Standard deviation . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agricultural lands | 1,757.7 | April | 176,064.0 | 95.9 | 26.8 |
May | 209,312.1 | 113.8 | 33.1 | ||
June | 232,404.6 | 126.0 | 32.2 | ||
July | 302,526.2 | 162.5 | 48.6 | ||
August | 196,126.0 | 104.8 | 32.0 | ||
September | 111,855.3 | 84.9 | 44.4 | ||
Forest and semi-natural lands | 1,615.8 | April | 148,655.0 | 90.4 | 35.5 |
May | 167,255.9 | 102.9 | 46.2 | ||
June | 188,299.9 | 114.2 | 49.1 | ||
July | 218,578.0 | 132.8 | 66.9 | ||
August | 198,516.7 | 114.6 | 42.8 | ||
September | 105,428.0 | 65.7 | 53.4 | ||
Wetlands | 3.1 | April | 229.6 | 57.5 | 37.3 |
May | 248.5 | 62.1 | 40.4 | ||
June | 414.4 | 103.6 | 20.0 | ||
July | 758.9 | 189.7 | 25.0 | ||
August | 663.8 | 166.0 | 21.1 | ||
September | 482.2 | 120.6 | 38.9 | ||
Water bodies | 75.7 | April | 12,108.4 | 126.1 | 32.1 |
May | 15,966.6 | 164.6 | 47.5 | ||
June | 17,782.5 | 183.3 | 40.0 | ||
July | 22,385.3 | 228.4 | 40.0 | ||
August | 18,510.4 | 210.3 | 38.8 | ||
September | 14,140.2 | 148.8 | 31.5 | ||
Artificial areas | 105.1 | April | 10,257.7 | 71.2 | 39.0 |
May | 13,441.4 | 87.3 | 50.1 | ||
June | 14.822.3 | 98.2 | 50.5 | ||
July | 18,145.3 | 121.8 | 58.5 | ||
August | 16,301.7 | 91.1 | 37.5 | ||
September | 6,844.1 | 54.8 | 45.7 |
Bafa Lake daily evaporation rates were estimated with 16.4% average standard error and 15.0% standard deviation for the 11 processed images. These results are compatible with Class-A pan-based lake evaporation rates. Monthly evaporation on Bafa Lake ranged between 145.4 mm in April 2010 and 248.7 mm in July 2010.
Daily actual evapotranspiration and energy balance components (15 June 2010).
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the use of remote sensing along with ground-based data to determine ET at a regional scale is demonstrated, and promising results are achieved. The spatial and temporal variation of ET was found to be significant due to the land use, meteorological conditions, and vegetation patterns. METRIC evaporations are in agreement with the Class A-pan data. As the METRIC ET estimations are closely aligned with the Class A-pan data, the method can also be used for estimating evaporation from lakes in data-scarce areas. Remote sensing-based pan coefficients can also be developed for monitoring of lakes.
The gridded ET maps can be used as input for hydrological models. They also have the potential to increase the effectiveness of water management strategies by determining irrigation requirements in spatially explicit ways. Moreover, spatially distributed evapotranspiration data on cultivated lands can be used to calculate crop water productivity (kg/m3), which is a powerful tool to assess the efficiency of different irrigation management systems including structural and non-structural applications such as irrigation schemes and legal and institutional frameworks.
This study forms a basis for estimation of ET for regional-scale applications particularly over agricultural areas in western Turkey. Future studies should include other ET models based on remote sensing data to determine the efficiency of respective models under the climate regime of western Turkey.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank their colleagues Dr S. Bayari and Dr A.U. Sorman for continuing support and discussions during this study.