the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Agreement, opposition, and dataset influence in global evapotranspiration trends
Abstract. Evapotranspiration (ET) is a key component of the terrestrial water and energy balance, and numerous global gridded ET products are routinely used to assess historical variability and trends. However, differences in forcing data, model structure and physics in these products complicate robust ET trend analyses. Here, we present a systematic intercomparison of 14 global terrestrial ET datasets for the period 2000–2019. We introduce a topology framework that categorizes ET datasets according to their trend signatures within multi-product ensembles, providing insight into the structural role of each dataset and revealing how certain products consistently amplify or oppose dominant trends, patterns that are not evident from standard ensemble statistics. We find that products which amplify negative trends consistently oppose the dominant ensemble trend direction, whereas products that amplify positive trends tend to produce statistically significant trends where most datasets indicate weak or non-significant change. We quantify the magnitude, direction, and statistical significance of ET trends across products and evaluate their spatial consistency. The analysis reveals substantial divergence among datasets. While many products indicate predominantly positive ET trends, agreement on the magnitude and direction of change is lacking across many regions. In many regions, trends differ by more than an order of magnitude, and the spatial patterns of significant trends are highly product-dependent. The resulting harmonized trend estimates and classification provide a reference resource for evaluating current and future ET products, assessing uncertainty in trend studies, and guiding the use and improvement of ET datasets. More broadly, the topology framework can be extended beyond ET to geoscientific data product ensembles in general, enabling fitness for purpose evaluation, uncertainty assessment, and more systematic intercomparison across datasets.
- Preprint
(4776 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(39426 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 29 Jul 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-334', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jul 2026 reply
Data sets
Agreement, opposition, and dataset influence in global evapotranspiration trends Johanna Thomson https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19843461
Model code and software
https://github.com/Jorub/ithaca/tree/main/projects/trend_evap Johanna R. Thomson, Riya Dutta, Yannis Markonis, and Mijael Rodrigo Vargas https://github.com/Jorub/ithaca/tree/main/projects/trend_evap
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 | 6 | 1 | 34 | 12 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 27
- PDF: 6
- XML: 1
- Total: 34
- Supplement: 12
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
A well-written and useful study, and a clear contribution that fits ESSD well. The harmonized 14-product dataset, the trend intercomparison, and the trend-signature topology framework are genuinely valuable, and the central message, that ET trend estimates are strongly dataset-dependent and that the disagreement is structured rather than random, is well supported. I have little to add: my comments are all minor and none affects the validity of the analysis.
Comments
1. The role of FLUXNET (l. 212-213, l. 452-454 and l. 472-474). These passages rest on FLUXNET influencing the products more than it does, and I think the statements should be revised.
At l. 212-213 regions lacking flux towers are said to be "likely weakly constrained by direct measurements", and at l. 452-454 the disagreement in "data-rich regions" is called striking. Both assume that flux-tower density constrains the products, but in-situ ET is not an input to any of them, so it is not clear that it does. Please clarify what "data-rich" means here, and state the mechanism by which tower density would constrain the ensemble, or revise the claim.
At l. 472-474, shared FLUXNET use is said to make products converge. Convergence would follow from shared calibration, not from shared evaluation, and the "or evaluation" makes the claim almost always true. The four products named are process-based or semi-empirical and, as far as I know, use FLUXNET mainly for evaluation, so the convergence argument does not hold for them.
2. DCI definition (Eq. 2). Eq. 2 defines the index on significant trends only (subscript s). But Fig. 2b is described as the DCI (l. 183-184) and mapped "irrespective of significance" (Fig. 2 caption), and the text says "regardless of significance" (l. 186). Please make Eq. 2 match the way the index is used; the subscript s may be a slip.
3. "Onset of directional opposition" (Fig. 2d) is not defined. The metric appears only in the figure caption and in the Results (l. 208-215), and Sect. 2 does not say how it is built. The panel is hard to read as it stands: the reader has to work out the procedure from the caption, and the meaning of the dominant "≤ 1" class is not clear. Please define the metric in Sect. 2 and give the thresholds used.
Editorial