the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Multi-spatial scale assessment and multi-dataset fusion of global terrestrial evapotranspiration datasets
Abstract. Evapotranspiration (ET) is an important component of the terrestrial water cycle, carbon cycle, and energy balance. Currently, there are four main types of ET datasets: remote sensing–based, machine learning–based, reanalysis–based, and land–surface–model–based. However, most existing ET fusion datasets rely on a single type of ET dataset, limiting their ability to effectively capture regional ET variations. This limitation hinders accurate quantification of the terrestrial water balance and understanding of climate change impacts. In this study, the accuracy and uncertainty of thirty ET datasets (across all four types) are evaluated at multiple spatial scales, and a fusion dataset BMA(Bayesian model averaging)-ET, is obtained using BMA method and dynamic weighting scheme for different vegetation types and non-common cover years among ET datasets. ET from FLUXNET as reference, the study recommends remote sensing– and machine learning–based ET datasets, especially Model Tree Ensemble Evapotranspiration (MTE) and Penman-Monteith-Leuning (PML), but the optimal selection depends on season and vegetation type. At the basin scale, land–surface–model–based ET datasets have less relative uncertainty compared to other types of ET. At the global scale, the uncertainty is lower in regions with larger ET, such as the Amazon, Central and Southern Africa, and Southeast Asia. The BMA-ET dataset accurately captures trends and seasonal variability in ET, showing a global terrestrial increasing trend of 0.21 mm·yr−1 over the study period. BMA-ET has higher correlation coefficients and lower root-mean-square errors than most individual ET datasets. Validation using ET from FLUXNET as reference shows that correlation coefficients of more than 70 % of the flux sites exceed 0.8. Overall, BMA-ET provides a comprehensive, long-term resource for understanding global ET patterns and trends, addressing the limitation of prior ET fusion efforts. Free access to the dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28034666.v1 (Wu and Miao, 2024).
- Preprint
(3389 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(14279 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-600', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Feb 2025
reply
GENERAL COMMENTS
The research entitled "Multi-spatial Scale Assessment and Multi-dataset Fusion of Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration Datasets" meticulously evaluated the accuracy and uncertainty inherent in thirty ET datasets at multiple spatial scales. These datasets encompass a variety of methodologies, including those derived from remote sensing–based, machine learning–based, reanalysis–based, and land–surface–model–based. Then the study produced a fusion ET dataset (BMA-ET) using BMA method and dynamic weighting scheme for different vegetation types. The article is well-written and demonstrates strong logical coherence. However, I am doubt about the purpose of this study. As the authors have pointed out, “there are large discrepancies among ET estimates from different methods”, I am wondering how does the research handle the uncertainty between different types of ET datasets. Due to differences in algorithm frameworks and input data, the uncertainty of estimation results varies. The ET Fusion not only combines the advantages of different models, but also integrates uncertainty and even enhances errors. Regarding this, the author did not provide a solution. For a global ET dataset, data availability is more important than validation accuracy, and the results and novelty do not reach the desired level, which I do not think meet the requirements of ESSD. Thus, I recommend rejection. Please see my specific comments below.SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1) I think the most significant problem with this research is that all the machine learning ET models and some other models (GLASS, PML, etc.) have been calibrated by ground observations from FLUXNET. The BMA-ET generated in this study used FLUXNET observations to fuse thirty ET datasets, which poses a problem of data reuse, and the estimated results may even overfit.2) How did the authors handle the estimation accuracy of sparse areas such as South America and Africa during the fusion process?
3) The BMA is not an advanced fusion algorithm. The GLASS v4.0 integrated five ET algorithms using BMA in 2014 and upgraded to v5.0 using a deep learning algorithm in 2022. Which version of GLASS product was fused in this study? Why don't the authors consider using deep learning fusion algorithms?
4) Table 2 shows that the spatial resolutions of the 30 ET datasets are different. How did the author solve the problem of spatial scale mismatch during the fusion process?
5) The 30 ET datasets cover different time ranges. How to carry out ET fusion for years with missing ET data?
6) What are the spatial and temporal resolution of BMA-ET? How to handle the mismatches with 30 ET input datasets?
7) Is the observation interval of the ground measurements from FLUXNET half an hour? How to process observation data into monthly scale? Is nighttime observation data used?
8) In line 181: What do 10 sites refer to? Does it refer to 60% of CRO sites? Please explain more clearly.
9) In section 2.2 (lines 176-195), “The ET fusion datasets for each vegetation type were spliced to obtain the final global ET fusion dataset”. How to obtain the boundaries of vegetation types at the regional scale? What is the accuracy? Have authors considered the fusion errors caused by land cover classification errors?
10) In Figure 2, “the 12 vegetation cover types do not cover the entire study area. For areas not covered, an equal weighting approach was taken”. Is this weight scheme reasonable?
11) In Figure 4, 30 ET datasets were well evaluated, and Table 3 showed the guidelines for the use of ET datasets. So, in the BMA-ET fusion process, were all 30 ET datasets used for fusion, or only the recommended datasets used for fusion? If as the authors stated, the accuracies of RA and LSM are not good, why are they still used for fusion?
12) In lines 237-238, the RS and ML ET datasets are recommended in the site scale validation results. Whereas, in lines 256-257, the ML ET datasets have greater TCH relative uncertainty. Do these two conclusions conflict? Please provide a detailed explanation.
13) In Figure 1, the common period of coverage for all ET datasets is 1982–2011. How did this study produce the BMA-ET dataset from 1980 to 2020?
14) In lines 355-356, the study recommended RS and ML based ET datasets (especially MTE and PML) based on the evaluation results. So why does the BMA-ET merge 30 ET datasets? Is it better to merge only MTE and PML?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-600-RC1
Data sets
A new global terrestrial evapotranspiration dataset from multi-datasets fusion based on Bayesian model averaging covering 1980-2020 (BMA-ET) Yi Wu and Chiyuan Miao https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28034666.v1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
188 | 33 | 5 | 226 | 20 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 188
- PDF: 33
- XML: 5
- Total: 226
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1