Randomized trial reveals improved accuracy of evapotranspiration estimates in global water cycle, highlighting implications for climate change.
Estimates of evapotranspiration (ET) and its components from satellite-based ET models have large uncertainties that hinder the understanding of the global terrestrial water cycle and its feedback to climate change. In this study, a modified Priestley–Taylor Jet Propulsion Laboratory (MPT-JPL) model was proposed by adjusting the relative surface wetness and plant moisture constraints. The MPT-JPL model was validated using the global FLUXNET dataset and compared with the Remote Sensing Penman–Monteith (RS-PM), Global LAnd Surface Satellite (GLASSv4.2), Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAMv4.2a), and a Simple Terrestrial Hydrosphere model (SiTHv2). The MPT-JPL is more accurate (daily: r = 0.78, RMSE = 0.87 mm d−1; yearly: r = 0.66, RMSE = 0.55 mm d−1) than the RS-PM and comparable to GLASSv4.2 at the site level. The ET and its component estimates from the MPT-JPL were highly related to field observations and had a higher accuracy than those from the original PT-JPL. The MPT-JPL improved the underestimation of transpiration (Tr) and overestimation of interception evaporation (Ei) in tropical forests. The MPT-JPL ET and Tr were spatially consistent with GLEAMv4.2a and SiTHv2 ET and Tr; however, large dissimilarities in soil evaporation and Ei were noted among the three products. The MPT-JPL Ei was closer to the GLEAMv4.2a Ei and larger than the SiTHv2 Ei. The MPT-JPL estimated Tr better in the Amazon forest and tropical non-forest and underestimated ET and Tr for tropical forests in Southeast Asia. This study provides a feasible method for increasing the estimation accuracy of ET and its components.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: