The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multi-site evaluation of terrestrial evaporation models using FLUXNET data
Open accessAbstract
a b s t r a c t We evaluated the performance of four commonly applied land surface evaporation models using a high-quality dataset of selected FLUXNET towers. The models that were examined include an energy balance approach (Surface Energy Balance System; SEBS), a combination-type technique (single-source Penman-Monteith; PM), a complementary method (advection-aridity; AA) and a radiation based approach (modified Priestley-Taylor; PT-JPL). Twenty FLUXNET towers were selected based upon sat- isfying stringent forcing data requirements and representing a wide range of biomes. These towers encompassed a number of grassland, cropland, shrubland, evergreen needleleaf forest and deciduous broadleaf forest sites. Based on the mean value of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and the root mean squared difference (RMSD), the order of overall performance of the models from best to worst were: ensemble mean of models (0.61, 64), PT-JPL (0.59, 66), SEBS (0.42, 84), PM (0.26, 105) and AA (0.18, 105) (statistics stated as (NSE, RMSD in W m −2 )). Although PT-JPL uses a relatively simple and largely empirical formulation of the evaporative process, the technique showed improved performance com- pared to PM, possibly due to its partitioning of total evaporation (canopy transpiration, soil evaporation, wet canopy evaporation) and lower uncertainties in the required forcing data. The SEBS model showed low performance over tall and heterogeneous canopies, which was likely a consequence of the effects of the roughness sub-layer parameterization employed in this scheme. However, SEBS performed well overall. Relative to PT-JPL and SEBS, the PM and AA showed low performance over the majority of sites, due to their sensitivity to the parameterization of resistances. Importantly, it should be noted that no single model was consistently best across all biomes. Indeed, this outcome highlights the need for further evaluation of each model's structure and parameterizations to identify sensitivities and their appropriate application to different surface types and conditions. It is expected that the results of this study can be used to inform decisions regarding model choice for water resources and agricultural management, as well as providing insight into model selection for global flux monitoring efforts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23153 · Cited by 13,446
The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections
Tebaldi, C., & Knutti, R. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2076 · Cited by 1,862
Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging
Duan, Q., Ajami, N. K., Gao, X., & Sorooshian, S. (2007) · Advances in Water Resources · doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.11.014 · Cited by 724
Cited by
ERA5-Land: a state-of-the-art global reanalysis dataset for land applications
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Dutra, E., Agustí-Panareda, A., Albergel, C., Arduini, G., Balsamo, G., Boussetta, S., Choulga, M., Harrigan, S., Hersbach, H., et al. (2021) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-13-4349-2021 · Cited by 5,540
Fisher, J. B., Melton, F., Middleton, E., Hain, C., Anderson, M., Allen, R., McCabe, M. F., Hook, S., Baldocchi, D., Townsend, P. A., et al. (2017) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2016wr020175 · Cited by 991
Self-citationSheffield, J., Wood, E. F., Pan, M., Beck, H., Coccia, G., Serrat‐Capdevila, A., & Verbist, K. (2018) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2017wr022437 · Cited by 561
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ershadi, A., McCabe, M. F., Evans, J. P., Chaney, N. W., & Wood, E. F.
- Venue
- Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 187
- Pages
- 46-61
- ISSN
- 0168-1923 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168612962
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 19.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multi-site evaluation of terrestrial evaporation models using FLUXNET data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.11.008
- The paper
- Ershadi, A., McCabe, M. F., Evans, J. P., Chaney, N. W., & Wood, E. F. (2014). Multi-site evaluation of terrestrial evaporation models using FLUXNET data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.11.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.