Evaluation of different methods for gap filling of long-term actual evapotranspiration time series measured by lysimeters

Huang, Yafei and Hendricks Franssen, Harrie-Jan and Herbst, Michael and Hirschi, Martin and Michel, Dominik and Seneviratne, Sonia I. and Teuling, Adriaan J. and Vogt, Roland and Detlef, Schumacher and Pütz, Thomas and Vereecken, Harry. (2020) Evaluation of different methods for gap filling of long-term actual evapotranspiration time series measured by lysimeters. Vadose Zone Journal, 19 (1). e20020.

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: https://edoc.unibas.ch/77951/

Downloads: Statistics Overview


Terrestrial evapotranspiration (ET) is the second largest water flux in the global water cycle. It can be measured with different techniques; weighable lysimeters can provide very accurate measurements, and some very long-term time series exist. However, these lysimeter time series are affected by data gaps that must be filled to estimate actual ET totals and long-term trends. In this paper, we explore four different gap-filling methods: the potential ET-method, the ratio method, the FAO-based water balance method, and HYDRUS modeling. These gap-filling methods were evaluated for three time series of actual ET measured by lysimeters and meteorological data of three European sites. Separate evaluations were made for the five driest and five wettest AprilâEuro"October periods to investigate whether the performance of the gap-filling methods was affected by hydrological conditions. Series of random gaps were artificially created for the three time series, including gaps of four different lengths. Actual ET was estimated for these gaps with the gap-filling methods, which were evaluated based on RMSE and mean bias error. The results show that the ratio method outperformed other methods for gap filling of lysimeter data for Basel (Switzerland), whereas the HYDRUS method outperformed other methods for Rheindahlen (Germany). For Rietholzbach (Switzerland), the different methods performed very similarly, except that the FAO method gives slightly larger RMSEs. The gap-filling methods do not perform very differently for dry and wet conditions. The ratio method is recommended for filling smaller gaps, and the HYDRUS method is recommended for longer gaps of 30 d.
Faculties and Departments:05 Faculty of Science > Departement Umweltwissenschaften > Geowissenschaften > Atmospheric Sciences (Kalberer)
UniBasel Contributors:Vogt, Roland
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Research Article
Publisher:Soil Science Society of America
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article
Related URLs:
Identification Number:
Last Modified:01 Nov 2021 14:15
Deposited On:01 Nov 2021 14:15

Repository Staff Only: item control page