Integrating remote sensing data on evapotranspiration and leaf area index with hydrological modeling: Impacts on model performance and future predictions

Journal of Hydrometeorology

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 2086-2100

  Parr, Dana ^a   Wang, Guiling ^a   Bjerklie, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evapotranspiration; Hydrologic models; Hydrology; Land surface model; Remote sensing; Vegetation

Indexed keywords

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; HYDROLOGY; LAND SURFACE; LEAF AREA INDEX; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; REMOTE SENSING; SATELLITE DATA; VEGETATION COVER;

CONNECTICUT BASIN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84947575684     PISSN: 1525755X     EISSN: 15257541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1175/JHM-D-15-0009.1     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ahmed, K. F., G. Wang, J. Silander, A. Wilson, J. Allen, R. Horton, and R. Anyah, 2013: Statistical downscaling and bias correction of climate model outputs for climate change impact assessment in the U.S. Northeast. Global Planet. Change, 100, 320-332, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.11.003.
2. Bjerklie, D., T. Trombley, and R. Viger, 2011: Simulations of historical and future trends in snowfall and groundwater recharge for basins draining to Long Island Sound. Earth Interact., 15, doi:10.1175/2011EI374.
3. Bormann, H., 2011: Sensitivity analysis of 18 different potential evapotranspiration models to observed climatic change at German climate stations. Climatic Change, 104, 729-753, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9869-7.
4. Caya, D., and R. Laprise, 1999: A semi-implicit semi-Lagrangian regional climate model: The Canadian RCM. Mon. Wea. Rev., 127, 341-362, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127<0341:ASISLR>2.0.CO;2.
5. Dorigo, W. A., K. Scipal, R. M. Parinussa, Y. Y. Liu, W. Wagner, R. A. M. de Jeu, and V. Naeimi, 2010: Error characterization of global active and passive microwave soil moisture data sets. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2605-2616, doi:10.5194/hess-14-2605-2010.
6. Eitzinger, J., D. Marinkovic, and J. Hösch, 2002: Sensitivity of different evapotranspiration calculation methods in different crop-weather models. Integrated Assessment and Decision Support: Proceedings of the First Biennial Meeting of the iEMSs, Vol. 2, A. E. Rizzoli and A. J. Jakeman, Eds., 395-400. [Available online at www.iemss.org/iemss2002/proceedings/pdf/volume%20due/161_eitzinger.pdf.]
7. Fisher, J., K. Tu, and D. Baldocchi, 2008: Global estimates of the land-atmosphere water flux based on monthly AVHRR and ISLSCP-II data, validated at 16 FLUXNET sites. Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 909-919, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2007.06.025.
8. Fisher, J., and Coauthors, 2009: The land-atmosphere water flux in the tropics. Global Change Biol., 15, 2694-2714, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01813.x.
9. Ford, T., and S. Quiring, 2013: Influence of MODIS-derived dynamic vegetation on VIC-simulated soil moisture in Oklahoma. J. Hydrometeor., 14, 1910-1921, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-13-037.1.
10. Immerzeel, W. W., and P. Bold, 2008: Calibration of a distributed hydrological model based on satellite evapotranspiration. J. Hydrol., 349, 411-424, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.11.017.
11. Kite, G. W., and P. Droogers, 2000: Comparing evapotranspiration estimates from satellites, hydrological models, and field data. J. Hydrol., 229, 3-18, doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00195-X.
12. Liang, X., D. P. Lettenmaier, E. F. Wood, and S. J. Burges, 1994:A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for GSMs. J. Geophys. Res., 99, 14 415-14 428, doi:10.1029/94JD00483.
13. Liu, Y. Y., W. A. Dorigo, R. M. Parinussa, R. A. M. de Jeu, W. Wagner, M. F. McCabe, J. P. Evans, and A. I. J. M. van Dijk, 2012: Trend-preserving blending of passive and active microwave soil moisture retrievals. Remote Sens. Environ., 123, 280-297, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.03.014.
14. Lu, J., G. Sun, S. G. McNulty, and D. M. Amatya, 2005: A comparison of six potential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the southeastern United States. J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc., 41, 621-633, doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03759.x.
15. Marshall, E., and T. Randhir, 2008: Effect of climate change on watershed system: A regional analysis. Climatic Change, 89, 263-280, doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9389-2.
16. McKenney, M. S., and N. J. Rosenberg, 1993: Sensitivity of some potential evapotranspiration estimation methods to climate change. Agric. For. Meteor., 64, 81-110, doi:10.1016/0168-1923(93)90095-Y.
17. Mearns, L., and Coauthors, 2012: The North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program: Overview of phase I results. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 1337-1362, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00223.1.
18. Mu, Q., F. Heinsch, M. Zhao, and S. Running, 2007: Development of a global evapotranspiration algorithm based on MODIS and global meteorology data. Remote Sens. Environ., 111, 519-536, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2007.04.015.
19. Naeimi, V., K. Scipal, Z. Bartalis, S. Hasenauer, and W. Wagner, 2009: An improved soil moisture retrieval algorithm for ERS and MetOp scatterometer observations. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 47, 1999-2013, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2008.2011617.
20. NWS, 2013: Connecticut River at Thompsonville hydrograph. Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service, NOAA/NWS. Accessed 12 September 2013. [Available online at http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=box&gage=tmvc3&hydro_type=2.]
21. Ottlé, C., and D. Vidal-Madjar, 1994: Assimilation of soil moisture inferred from infrared remote sensing in a hydrological model over the HAPEX-MOBILHY region. J. Hydrol., 158, 241-264, doi:10.1016/0022-1694(94)90056-6.
22. Pal, J. S., and Coauthors, 2007: Regional climate modeling for the developing world: The ICTP RegCM3 and RegCNET. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 1395-1409, doi:10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1395.
23. Parr, D. T., and G. L. Wang, 2014: Hydrological changes in the U.S. Northeast using the Connecticut River basin as a case study: Part 1. Modeling and analysis of the past. Global Planet. Change, 122, 208-222, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.08.009.
24. Renard, B., D. Kavetski, G. Kuczera, M. Thyer, and S. Franks, 2010: Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling. The challenge of identifying input and structural errors. Water Resour. Res., 46, W05521, doi:10.1029/2009WR008328.
25. Reynolds, C. A., T. J. Jackson, and W. J. Rawls, 2000: Estimating soil water-holding capacities by linking the Food and Agriculture Organization soil map of the world with global pedon databases and continuous pedotransfer functions. Water Resour. Res., 36, 3653-3662, doi:10.1029/2000WR900130.
26. Sheffield, J., and E. Wood, 2007: Characteristics of global and regional drought, 1950-2000: Analysis of soil moisture data from off-line simulation of the terrestrial hydrological cycle. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D17115, doi:10.1029/2006JD008288.
27. Sheffield, J., B. Livneh, and E. F. Wood, 2007: Representation of terrestrial hydrology and large-scale drought of the continental United States from the North American Regional Reanalysis. J. Hydrometeor., 13, 856-876, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-11-065.1.
28. Tang, Q., E. R. Vivoni, F. Muñoz-Arriola, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2012: Predictability of evapotranspiration patterns using remotely sensed vegetation dynamics during the North American monsoon. J. Hydrometeor., 13, 103-121, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-11-032.1.
29. Trambauer, P., E. Dutra, S. Maskey, M. Werner, F. Pappernberger, L. P. H. van Beek, and S. Uhlenbrook, 2014: Comparison of different evaporation estimates over the African continent. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 193-212, doi:10.5194/hess-18-193-2014.
30. USGS, 2011: HYDRO1k documentation. Accessed 22 June 2015. [Available online at http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/globalgis/metadata_qr/metadata/hydro1k.htm.]
31. USGS, 2012: USGS water data for Connecticut. Accessed 30 January 2012. [Available online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ct/nwis.]
32. Vano, J., T. Das, and D. Lettenmaier, 2012: Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature. J. Hydrometeor., 13, 932-949, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-11-069.1.
33. Vinukollu, R., E. Wood, C. Ferguson, and J. Fisher, 2011: Global estimates of evapotranspiration for climate studies using multi-sensor remote sensing data: Evaluation of three processbased approaches. Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 801-823, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2010.11.006.
34. Wattenbach, M., D. Franz, W. Liang, M. Schmidt, F. Seitz, and A. Güntner, 2012: Integration of MODIS LAI products into the hydrological model WGHM indicate the sensitivity of total water storage simulations to vegetation cover dynamics. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Abstract EGU2012-10116. [Available online at http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2012/EGU2012-10116.pdf.]
35. Weiß, M., and L. Menzel, 2008: A global comparison of four potential evapotranspiration equations and their relevance to stream flow modelling in semi-arid environments. Adv. Geosci., 18, 15-23, doi:10.5194/adgeo-18-15-2008.
36. Wood, A. W., E. P. Maurer, A. Kumar, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2002: Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4429, doi:10.1029/2001JD000659.
37. Wood, A. W., L. R. Leung, V. Sridhar, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2004: Hydrological implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model surface temperature and precipitation fields. Climatic Change, 62, 189-216, doi:10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013685.99609.9e.
38. Xia, Y., M. Ek, and H. Wei, 2012a: Comparative analysis of relationships between NLDAS-2 forcings and model outputs. Hydrol. Processes, 26, 467-474, doi:10.1002/hyp.8240.
39. Xia, Y., and Coauthors, 2012b: Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products. J. Geophys. Res., 117, D03109, doi:10.1029/2011JD016048.
40. Xia, Y., and Coauthors, 2012c: Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 2. Validation of model-simulated streamflow. J. Geophys. Res., 117, D03110, doi:10.1029/2011JD016051.
41. Xia, Y., M. Hobbins, Q. Mu, and M. Ek, 2015: Evaluation of NLDAS-2 evapotranspiration against tower flux site observations. Hydrol. Processes, 29, 1757-1771, doi:10.1002/hyp.10299.
42. Zhang, Y. Q., N. R. Viney, F. H. S. Chiew, A. I. J. M. van Dijk, and Y. Y. Liu, 2011: Improving hydrological and vegetation modelling using regional calibration schemes together with remote sensing data. MODSIM2011: 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, F. Chan, D. Marinova, and R. S. Anderssen, Eds., Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, 3448-3454. [Available online at http://mssanz.org.au/modsim2011/I4/zhang.pdf.]
43. Zhou, Y., Y. Zhang, J. Vaze, P. Lane, and S. Xu, 2013: Improving runoff estimates using remote sensing vegetation data for bushfire impacted catchments. Agric. For. Meteor., 182-183, 332-341, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.018.