Modeling Evapotranspiration of Winter Wheat Using Contextual and Pixel-Based Surface Energy Balance Models

Highlights Three contextual-based (CB) and two pixel-based (PB) models were evaluated to estimate ET of rainfed winter wheat. Instantaneous available energy estimation and ET upscaling impacted model performance. The CB models performed better at instantaneous and daily scales compared to the PB models. ET estimation biases increased during low vegetation and drier conditions, especially for the PB models. Abstract. Surface energy balance (SEB) models based on thermal remote sensing data are widely used in research applications to map evapotranspiration (ET) across various landscapes. However, their ability to capture ET from winter wheat remains underexplored, especially in practical applications such as integrated resource management and drought preparedness. Investigating winter wheat ET dynamics is important in agricultural regions such as the Southern Great Plains of the U.S., where winter wheat is extensively cultivated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of five fully automated SEB models, three contextual-based (CB) and two pixel-based (PB), in estimating instantaneous and daily ET of winter wheat by comparing the model results with flux tower observations. The CB models included Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land (SEBAL), Mapping Evapotranspiration at high Resolution with Internalized Calibration (METRIC), and Triangular Vegetation Temperature (TVT). The PB models included Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) and Two-Source Energy Balance (TSEB). Model evaluation during two winter wheat growing seasons (2016-2018) using 28 Landsat images showed that the instantaneous ET estimates from METRIC and TSEB had the smallest (RMSE = 0.14 mm h-1) and largest (RMSE = 0.27 mm h-1) errors, respectively. At the daily scale, SEBAL was the best performing model (RMSE = 1.0 mm d-1), followed by TVT (RMSE = 1.1 mm d-1), METRIC (RMSE = 1.2 mm d-1), SEBS (RMSE = 1.3 mm d-1), and TSEB (RMSE = 1.5 mm d-1). Overall, the CB models provided smaller errors than the PB models. Larger errors in daily ET estimation were observed during low vegetation and drier conditions, especially for the PB models.