Multi‐model ensemble prediction of terrestrial evapotranspiration across north China using Bayesian model averaging. Issue 16 (19th April 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Multi‐model ensemble prediction of terrestrial evapotranspiration across north China using Bayesian model averaging. Issue 16 (19th April 2016)
- Main Title:
- Multi‐model ensemble prediction of terrestrial evapotranspiration across north China using Bayesian model averaging
- Authors:
- Zhu, Gaofeng
Li, Xin
Zhang, Kun
Ding, Zhenyu
Han, Tuo
Ma, Jinzhu
Huang, Chunlin
He, Jianhua
Ma, Ting - Abstract:
- Abstract: Using high‐quality dataset from 12 flux towers in north China, the performance of four evapotranspiration (ET) models and the multi‐model ensemble approaches including the simple averaging (SA) and Bayesian model average (BMA) were systematically evaluated in this study. The four models were the single‐layer Penman–Monteith (P–M) model, the two‐layer Shuttleworthe–Wallace (S–W) model, the advection–aridity (A–A) model, and a modified Priestley–Taylor (PT‐JPL). Based on the mean value of Taylor skill ( S ) and the regression slope between measured and simulated ET values across all sites, the order of overall performance of the individual models from the best to the worst were: S–W (0.88, 0.87), PT‐JPL (0.80, 1.17), P–M (0.63, 1.73) and A–A (0.60, 1.68) [statistics stated as (Taylor skill, regression slope)]. Here, all models used the same values of parameters, LAI and fractional vegetation cover as well as the forcing meteorological data. Thus, the differences in model performance were mainly attributed to errors in model structure. To the ensemble approach, the BMA method has the advantage of generating more skillful and reliable predictions than the SA scheme. However, successful implementation of BMA requires accurate estimates of its parameters, and some degradation in performance were observed when the BMA parameters generated from the training period were used for the validation period. Thus, it is necessary to explore the seasonal variations of the BMAAbstract: Using high‐quality dataset from 12 flux towers in north China, the performance of four evapotranspiration (ET) models and the multi‐model ensemble approaches including the simple averaging (SA) and Bayesian model average (BMA) were systematically evaluated in this study. The four models were the single‐layer Penman–Monteith (P–M) model, the two‐layer Shuttleworthe–Wallace (S–W) model, the advection–aridity (A–A) model, and a modified Priestley–Taylor (PT‐JPL). Based on the mean value of Taylor skill ( S ) and the regression slope between measured and simulated ET values across all sites, the order of overall performance of the individual models from the best to the worst were: S–W (0.88, 0.87), PT‐JPL (0.80, 1.17), P–M (0.63, 1.73) and A–A (0.60, 1.68) [statistics stated as (Taylor skill, regression slope)]. Here, all models used the same values of parameters, LAI and fractional vegetation cover as well as the forcing meteorological data. Thus, the differences in model performance were mainly attributed to errors in model structure. To the ensemble approach, the BMA method has the advantage of generating more skillful and reliable predictions than the SA scheme. However, successful implementation of BMA requires accurate estimates of its parameters, and some degradation in performance were observed when the BMA parameters generated from the training period were used for the validation period. Thus, it is necessary to explore the seasonal variations of the BMA parameters according the different growth stages. Finally, the optimal conditional density function of half‐hourly ET approximated well by the double‐exponential distribution. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Hydrological processes. Volume 30:Issue 16(2016)
- Journal:
- Hydrological processes
- Issue:
- Volume 30:Issue 16(2016)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 30, Issue 16 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 30
- Issue:
- 16
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0030-0016-0000
- Page Start:
- 2861
- Page End:
- 2879
- Publication Date:
- 2016-04-19
- Subjects:
- evapotranspiration -- multi‐model intercomparison -- water‐limited ecosystems -- Bayesian model averaging -- Penman–Monteith -- advection–aridity -- Priestley–Taylor
Hydrology -- Periodicals
Hydrology -- Research -- Periodicals
Hydrologic models -- Periodicals
Hydrological forecasting -- Periodicals
631.432 - Journal URLs:
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗
- DOI:
- 10.1002/hyp.10832 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0885-6087
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 4347.625600
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 4568.xml