Table 2 summarizes the pairwise comparison of *E* and *T* fluxes between the three methods. The upper diagonal entries order the methods (in a pairwise manner) in terms of the estimation of *E* while the lower diagonal entries order the methods in terms of the estimation of *T*. As we can note from Table 2, the dry bias in AMSRE (comparison between SETS and SETS-AMS) led to an underestimation of both *E* and *T* fluxes. Meanwhile, the lack of explicit soil moisture accounting but with control on AMSRE bias (comparison between ETLook and SETS-AMS) led to an overestimation of *E* and *T* fluxes. What is interesting here is that the lower estimation effect of AMSRE bias dominated the overestimating effect of lack of soil moisture accounting in the case of *E* flux while the opposite happened in the case of *T* flux. Hence we found SETS estimation of *E* flux was larger than that of ETLook while the reverse held for the estimation of *T* flux.

Table 2

Models' . |
. | E. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

outputs . | . | SETS . | SETS-AMS . | ETLook . |

SETS | T | – | SETS > SETS-AMS | |

SETS-AMS | SETS-AMS < SETS | – | SETS-AMS < ETLook | |

ETLook | ETLook > SETS-AMS | – |

Models' . |
. | E. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

outputs . | . | SETS . | SETS-AMS . | ETLook . |

SETS | T | – | SETS > SETS-AMS | |

SETS-AMS | SETS-AMS < SETS | – | SETS-AMS < ETLook | |

ETLook | ETLook > SETS-AMS | – |

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy.