IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v311y2025ics0378377425000939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of different data quality control on evapotranspiration of winter wheat with Bowen ratio method

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, Yingnan
  • Li, Qiaozhen
  • Zhong, Xiuli
  • Gong, Daozhi
  • Liu, Xiaoying

Abstract

The Bowen ratio energy balance (BREB) method is widely used to study surface evapotranspiration, but its major drawback is the uncertainty when Bowen ratio (β)→ −1. Various approaches have been employed to address this issue, but their performances were less evaluated via long-term field observations. Using data from three growing cycles, this study investigated the effect of five screening methods (Mth1 to Mth5 for −1 − |ε1| < β < −1 + |ε1|, −1.05 < β < −0.95, β < −0.75, −1.3 < β < −0.75 and β < −0.7 or β > 10 or Δe ≤ 0, Δe denotes the measured vapor pressure gradient, and ε1 is a coefficient depending on sensor resolution and Δe) on winter wheat evapotranspiration in northern China. On diurnal, daily and seasonal basis, the effect was in the order of Mth5 > Mth3 > Mth1 > Mth2 > Mth4, and the seasonal mean daily value of the gap-filled was 0.38, 0.22, 0.11, 0.01, and 0.01 mm d−1 higher than the unfilled ones, yielding a seasonal total of 96.0, 53.5, 26.0, −0.9, and 0.4 mm, or 18.9 %, 11.4 %, 6.5 %, −0.2 %, and 0.1 % higher than the unfilled ones, respectively. These values resulted from the large difference in data rejection ranking as Mth5 > Mth3 > Mth1 > Mth4 > Mth2, seasonal mean daily 10-min rejection rate ranging from 15.4–73.2 %, 10.3–48.9 %, 5.3–44.9 %, 1.6–10.4 %, and 0.5–7.3 %, respectively (averaging 42.4 %, 30.5 %, 23.2 %, 5.7 %, and 2.6 %, respectively). The corresponding daily rejected hours ranged from 6.83–8.88, 3.60–6.11, 1.85–3.49, 0.10–0.39, and 0.07–0.33 h/day, respectively (averaging 7.53, 4.77, 2.90, 0.28, and 0.24 h/day, respectively), resulting in large data gaps for Mth5 (58.8 %), Mth3 (38.2 %), and Mth1 (17.5 %). Nighttime deletion dominated for Mth2 to Mth4, accounting for 61.1 %, 64.4 %, 68.3 %, and 63.2 % of the total deletion, whereas daytime deletion dominated for Mth1, accounting for 58.1 %. A large portion of invalid rejections of Mth1 (40.4 %–77.6 %), Mth3 (54.3 %–90.9 %) and Mth5 (61.8 %–92.7 %) was observed at the selected period, which was probably a consequence of the sensor’s error cancellation effect, questioning the traditional a priori assumption that small vapor gradients within instrumental error should be discarded. Overall, large differences were observed and the simple Mth4 performed better than the more restrictive ones. These findings are expected to guide the selection of post-data processing in the application of BREB method.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, Yingnan & Li, Qiaozhen & Zhong, Xiuli & Gong, Daozhi & Liu, Xiaoying, 2025. "Effect of different data quality control on evapotranspiration of winter wheat with Bowen ratio method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:311:y:2025:i:c:s0378377425000939
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377425000939
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:311:y:2025:i:c:s0378377425000939. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.