Comparison of ET estimations by the three-temperature model, SEBAL model and eddy covariance observations

- Three-temperature model is compared with SEBAL model and eddy covariance.
- Three-temperature model is not suitable for ET estimating in early and late hours.
- Wind speed does not affect ET estimating using the three-temperature model.
- Three-temperature model is a simple and accurate model during 0900-1600.

SummaryThe three-temperature (3T) model is a simple model which estimates plant transpiration from only temperature data. In-situ field experimental results have shown that 3T is a reliable evapotranspiration (ET) estimation model. Despite encouraging results from recent efforts extending the 3T model to remote sensing applications, literature shows limited comparisons of the 3T model with other remote sensing driven ET models. This research used ET obtained from eddy covariance to evaluate the 3T model and in turn compared the model-simulated ET with that of the more traditional SEBAL (Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land) model. A field experiment was conducted in the cotton fields of Taklamakan desert oasis in Xinjiang, Northwest China. Radiation and surface temperature were obtained from hyperspectral and thermal infrared images for clear days in 2013. The images covered the time period of 0900-1800 h at four different phenological stages of cotton. Meteorological data were automatically recorded in a station located at the center of the cotton field. Results showed that the 3T model accurately captured daily and seasonal variations in ET. As low dry soil surface temperatures induced significant errors in the 3T model, it was unsuitable for estimating ET in the early morning and late afternoon periods. The model-simulated ET was relatively more accurate for squaring, bolling and boll-opening stages than for seedling stage of cotton during when ET was generally low. Wind speed was apparently not a limiting factor of ET in the 3T model. This was attributed to the fact that surface temperature, a vital input of the model, indirectly accounted for the effect of wind speed on ET. Although the 3T model slightly overestimated ET compared with SEBAL and eddy covariance, it was generally reliable for estimating daytime ET during 0900-1600 h.