Loading…
Utility of the two-source energy balance (TSEB) model in vine and interrow flux partitioning over the growing season
For monitoring water use in vineyards, it becomes important to evaluate the evapotranspiration (ET) contributions from the two distinct management zones: the vines and the interrow. Often the interrow is not completely bare soil but contains a cover crop that is senescent during the main growing sea...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Irrigation science 2019-05, Vol.37 (3), p.375-388 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f59c605913951500510dc890d141306f525d21dfd1a2bcb9beb3b99c2147c4b3 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f59c605913951500510dc890d141306f525d21dfd1a2bcb9beb3b99c2147c4b3 |
| container_end_page | 388 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 375 |
| container_title | Irrigation science |
| container_volume | 37 |
| creator | Kustas, W. P. Alfieri, J. G. Nieto, H. Wilson, T. G. Gao, F. Anderson, M. C. |
| description | For monitoring water use in vineyards, it becomes important to evaluate the evapotranspiration (ET) contributions from the two distinct management zones: the vines and the interrow. Often the interrow is not completely bare soil but contains a cover crop that is senescent during the main growing season (nominally May–August), which in Central California is also the dry season. Drip irrigation systems running during the growing season supply water to the vine plant and re-wet some of the surrounding bare soil. However, most of the interrow cover crop is dry stubble by the end of May. This paper analyzes the utility of the thermal-based two-source energy balance (TSEB) model for estimating daytime ET using tower-based land surface temperature (LST) estimates over two Pinot Noir (
Vitis vinifera
) vineyards at different levels of maturity in the Central Valley of California near Lodi, CA. The data were collected as part of the Grape Remote sensing Atmospheric Profile and Evapotranspiration eXperiment (GRAPEX). Local eddy covariance (EC) flux tower measurements are used to evaluate the performance of the TSEB model output of the fluxes and the capability of partitioning the vine and cover crop transpiration (
T
) from the total ET or
T
/ET ratio. The results for the 2014–2016 growing seasons indicate that TSEB output of the energy balance components and ET, particularly, over the daytime period yield relative differences with flux tower measurements of less than 15%. However, the TSEB model in comparison with the correlation-based flux partitioning method overestimates
T
/ET during the winter and spring through bud break, but then underestimates during the growing season. A major factor that appears to affect this temporal behavior in
T
/ET is the daily LAI used as input to TSEB derived from a remote sensing product. An additional source of uncertainty is the use of local tower-based LST measurements, which are not representative of the flux tower measurement source area footprint. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00271-018-0586-8 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2103986300</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2103986300</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f59c605913951500510dc890d141306f525d21dfd1a2bcb9beb3b99c2147c4b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PAyEQhonRxPrxA7yReNEDOgPLLhzV-JWYeLCeyX6wdZstVKBq_73UmnjyNDPM-74THkJOEC4QoLqMALxCBqgYSFUytUMmWAjOUKDeJRMQBWcVKrVPDmKcA2BVqmJC0msaxiGtqe9perM0fXoW_Sq0llpnw2xNm3qsXR7Ppi-31-d04Ts70sHRj8FZWrsu98mG4D9pP66-6LIOaUiDd4ObUf9hw0_sLO83D9HW0bsjstfXY7THv_WQTO9upzcP7On5_vHm6om1QurEeqnbEqRGoSVKAInQtUpDhwUKKHvJZcex6zusedM2urGNaLRuORZVWzTikJxuY5fBv69sTGaef-byRcMRhFalAMgq3Kra4GMMtjfLMCzqsDYIZsPWbNmazNZs2BqVPXzriVnrZjb8Jf9v-gb1FnxT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2103986300</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Utility of the two-source energy balance (TSEB) model in vine and interrow flux partitioning over the growing season</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Kustas, W. P. ; Alfieri, J. G. ; Nieto, H. ; Wilson, T. G. ; Gao, F. ; Anderson, M. C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kustas, W. P. ; Alfieri, J. G. ; Nieto, H. ; Wilson, T. G. ; Gao, F. ; Anderson, M. C.</creatorcontrib><description>For monitoring water use in vineyards, it becomes important to evaluate the evapotranspiration (ET) contributions from the two distinct management zones: the vines and the interrow. Often the interrow is not completely bare soil but contains a cover crop that is senescent during the main growing season (nominally May–August), which in Central California is also the dry season. Drip irrigation systems running during the growing season supply water to the vine plant and re-wet some of the surrounding bare soil. However, most of the interrow cover crop is dry stubble by the end of May. This paper analyzes the utility of the thermal-based two-source energy balance (TSEB) model for estimating daytime ET using tower-based land surface temperature (LST) estimates over two Pinot Noir (
Vitis vinifera
) vineyards at different levels of maturity in the Central Valley of California near Lodi, CA. The data were collected as part of the Grape Remote sensing Atmospheric Profile and Evapotranspiration eXperiment (GRAPEX). Local eddy covariance (EC) flux tower measurements are used to evaluate the performance of the TSEB model output of the fluxes and the capability of partitioning the vine and cover crop transpiration (
T
) from the total ET or
T
/ET ratio. The results for the 2014–2016 growing seasons indicate that TSEB output of the energy balance components and ET, particularly, over the daytime period yield relative differences with flux tower measurements of less than 15%. However, the TSEB model in comparison with the correlation-based flux partitioning method overestimates
T
/ET during the winter and spring through bud break, but then underestimates during the growing season. A major factor that appears to affect this temporal behavior in
T
/ET is the daily LAI used as input to TSEB derived from a remote sensing product. An additional source of uncertainty is the use of local tower-based LST measurements, which are not representative of the flux tower measurement source area footprint.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0342-7188</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1319</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00271-018-0586-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Agricultural practices ; Agriculture ; Aquatic Pollution ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Climate Change ; Covariance ; Cover crops ; Crops ; Daytime ; Drip irrigation ; Dry season ; Energy balance ; Environment ; Evapotranspiration ; Fluctuations ; Fluxes ; Growing season ; Irrigation systems ; Land surface temperature ; Life Sciences ; Original Paper ; Partitioning ; Remote sensing ; Seasons ; Soil ; Stubble ; Surface temperature ; Sustainable Development ; Towers ; Transpiration ; Vines ; Vineyards ; Waste Water Technology ; Water Industry/Water Technologies ; Water Management ; Water monitoring ; Water Pollution Control ; Water use ; Wineries & vineyards</subject><ispartof>Irrigation science, 2019-05, Vol.37 (3), p.375-388</ispartof><rights>This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018</rights><rights>Irrigation Science is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f59c605913951500510dc890d141306f525d21dfd1a2bcb9beb3b99c2147c4b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f59c605913951500510dc890d141306f525d21dfd1a2bcb9beb3b99c2147c4b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5727-4350</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,783,787,27936,27937</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kustas, W. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alfieri, J. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieto, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, T. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, M. C.</creatorcontrib><title>Utility of the two-source energy balance (TSEB) model in vine and interrow flux partitioning over the growing season</title><title>Irrigation science</title><addtitle>Irrig Sci</addtitle><description>For monitoring water use in vineyards, it becomes important to evaluate the evapotranspiration (ET) contributions from the two distinct management zones: the vines and the interrow. Often the interrow is not completely bare soil but contains a cover crop that is senescent during the main growing season (nominally May–August), which in Central California is also the dry season. Drip irrigation systems running during the growing season supply water to the vine plant and re-wet some of the surrounding bare soil. However, most of the interrow cover crop is dry stubble by the end of May. This paper analyzes the utility of the thermal-based two-source energy balance (TSEB) model for estimating daytime ET using tower-based land surface temperature (LST) estimates over two Pinot Noir (
Vitis vinifera
) vineyards at different levels of maturity in the Central Valley of California near Lodi, CA. The data were collected as part of the Grape Remote sensing Atmospheric Profile and Evapotranspiration eXperiment (GRAPEX). Local eddy covariance (EC) flux tower measurements are used to evaluate the performance of the TSEB model output of the fluxes and the capability of partitioning the vine and cover crop transpiration (
T
) from the total ET or
T
/ET ratio. The results for the 2014–2016 growing seasons indicate that TSEB output of the energy balance components and ET, particularly, over the daytime period yield relative differences with flux tower measurements of less than 15%. However, the TSEB model in comparison with the correlation-based flux partitioning method overestimates
T
/ET during the winter and spring through bud break, but then underestimates during the growing season. A major factor that appears to affect this temporal behavior in
T
/ET is the daily LAI used as input to TSEB derived from a remote sensing product. An additional source of uncertainty is the use of local tower-based LST measurements, which are not representative of the flux tower measurement source area footprint.</description><subject>Agricultural practices</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Aquatic Pollution</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Climate Change</subject><subject>Covariance</subject><subject>Cover crops</subject><subject>Crops</subject><subject>Daytime</subject><subject>Drip irrigation</subject><subject>Dry season</subject><subject>Energy balance</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Evapotranspiration</subject><subject>Fluctuations</subject><subject>Fluxes</subject><subject>Growing season</subject><subject>Irrigation systems</subject><subject>Land surface temperature</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Partitioning</subject><subject>Remote sensing</subject><subject>Seasons</subject><subject>Soil</subject><subject>Stubble</subject><subject>Surface temperature</subject><subject>Sustainable Development</subject><subject>Towers</subject><subject>Transpiration</subject><subject>Vines</subject><subject>Vineyards</subject><subject>Waste Water Technology</subject><subject>Water Industry/Water Technologies</subject><subject>Water Management</subject><subject>Water monitoring</subject><subject>Water Pollution Control</subject><subject>Water use</subject><subject>Wineries & vineyards</subject><issn>0342-7188</issn><issn>1432-1319</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1PAyEQhonRxPrxA7yReNEDOgPLLhzV-JWYeLCeyX6wdZstVKBq_73UmnjyNDPM-74THkJOEC4QoLqMALxCBqgYSFUytUMmWAjOUKDeJRMQBWcVKrVPDmKcA2BVqmJC0msaxiGtqe9perM0fXoW_Sq0llpnw2xNm3qsXR7Ppi-31-d04Ts70sHRj8FZWrsu98mG4D9pP66-6LIOaUiDd4ObUf9hw0_sLO83D9HW0bsjstfXY7THv_WQTO9upzcP7On5_vHm6om1QurEeqnbEqRGoSVKAInQtUpDhwUKKHvJZcex6zusedM2urGNaLRuORZVWzTikJxuY5fBv69sTGaef-byRcMRhFalAMgq3Kra4GMMtjfLMCzqsDYIZsPWbNmazNZs2BqVPXzriVnrZjb8Jf9v-gb1FnxT</recordid><startdate>20190501</startdate><enddate>20190501</enddate><creator>Kustas, W. P.</creator><creator>Alfieri, J. G.</creator><creator>Nieto, H.</creator><creator>Wilson, T. G.</creator><creator>Gao, F.</creator><creator>Anderson, M. C.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5727-4350</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190501</creationdate><title>Utility of the two-source energy balance (TSEB) model in vine and interrow flux partitioning over the growing season</title><author>Kustas, W. P. ; Alfieri, J. G. ; Nieto, H. ; Wilson, T. G. ; Gao, F. ; Anderson, M. C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f59c605913951500510dc890d141306f525d21dfd1a2bcb9beb3b99c2147c4b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Agricultural practices</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Aquatic Pollution</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Climate Change</topic><topic>Covariance</topic><topic>Cover crops</topic><topic>Crops</topic><topic>Daytime</topic><topic>Drip irrigation</topic><topic>Dry season</topic><topic>Energy balance</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Evapotranspiration</topic><topic>Fluctuations</topic><topic>Fluxes</topic><topic>Growing season</topic><topic>Irrigation systems</topic><topic>Land surface temperature</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Partitioning</topic><topic>Remote sensing</topic><topic>Seasons</topic><topic>Soil</topic><topic>Stubble</topic><topic>Surface temperature</topic><topic>Sustainable Development</topic><topic>Towers</topic><topic>Transpiration</topic><topic>Vines</topic><topic>Vineyards</topic><topic>Waste Water Technology</topic><topic>Water Industry/Water Technologies</topic><topic>Water Management</topic><topic>Water monitoring</topic><topic>Water Pollution Control</topic><topic>Water use</topic><topic>Wineries & vineyards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kustas, W. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alfieri, J. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieto, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, T. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, M. C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Irrigation science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kustas, W. P.</au><au>Alfieri, J. G.</au><au>Nieto, H.</au><au>Wilson, T. G.</au><au>Gao, F.</au><au>Anderson, M. C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Utility of the two-source energy balance (TSEB) model in vine and interrow flux partitioning over the growing season</atitle><jtitle>Irrigation science</jtitle><stitle>Irrig Sci</stitle><date>2019-05-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>375</spage><epage>388</epage><pages>375-388</pages><issn>0342-7188</issn><eissn>1432-1319</eissn><abstract>For monitoring water use in vineyards, it becomes important to evaluate the evapotranspiration (ET) contributions from the two distinct management zones: the vines and the interrow. Often the interrow is not completely bare soil but contains a cover crop that is senescent during the main growing season (nominally May–August), which in Central California is also the dry season. Drip irrigation systems running during the growing season supply water to the vine plant and re-wet some of the surrounding bare soil. However, most of the interrow cover crop is dry stubble by the end of May. This paper analyzes the utility of the thermal-based two-source energy balance (TSEB) model for estimating daytime ET using tower-based land surface temperature (LST) estimates over two Pinot Noir (
Vitis vinifera
) vineyards at different levels of maturity in the Central Valley of California near Lodi, CA. The data were collected as part of the Grape Remote sensing Atmospheric Profile and Evapotranspiration eXperiment (GRAPEX). Local eddy covariance (EC) flux tower measurements are used to evaluate the performance of the TSEB model output of the fluxes and the capability of partitioning the vine and cover crop transpiration (
T
) from the total ET or
T
/ET ratio. The results for the 2014–2016 growing seasons indicate that TSEB output of the energy balance components and ET, particularly, over the daytime period yield relative differences with flux tower measurements of less than 15%. However, the TSEB model in comparison with the correlation-based flux partitioning method overestimates
T
/ET during the winter and spring through bud break, but then underestimates during the growing season. A major factor that appears to affect this temporal behavior in
T
/ET is the daily LAI used as input to TSEB derived from a remote sensing product. An additional source of uncertainty is the use of local tower-based LST measurements, which are not representative of the flux tower measurement source area footprint.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s00271-018-0586-8</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5727-4350</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0342-7188 |
| ispartof | Irrigation science, 2019-05, Vol.37 (3), p.375-388 |
| issn | 0342-7188 1432-1319 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2103986300 |
| source | Springer Nature |
| subjects | Agricultural practices Agriculture Aquatic Pollution Biomedical and Life Sciences Climate Change Covariance Cover crops Crops Daytime Drip irrigation Dry season Energy balance Environment Evapotranspiration Fluctuations Fluxes Growing season Irrigation systems Land surface temperature Life Sciences Original Paper Partitioning Remote sensing Seasons Soil Stubble Surface temperature Sustainable Development Towers Transpiration Vines Vineyards Waste Water Technology Water Industry/Water Technologies Water Management Water monitoring Water Pollution Control Water use Wineries & vineyards |
| title | Utility of the two-source energy balance (TSEB) model in vine and interrow flux partitioning over the growing season |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-11-13T14%3A47%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Utility%20of%20the%20two-source%20energy%20balance%20(TSEB)%20model%20in%20vine%20and%20interrow%20flux%20partitioning%20over%20the%20growing%20season&rft.jtitle=Irrigation%20science&rft.au=Kustas,%20W.%20P.&rft.date=2019-05-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=375&rft.epage=388&rft.pages=375-388&rft.issn=0342-7188&rft.eissn=1432-1319&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00271-018-0586-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2103986300%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f59c605913951500510dc890d141306f525d21dfd1a2bcb9beb3b99c2147c4b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2103986300&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |