Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of advection on two-source energy balance (TSEB) canopy transpiration parameterization for vineyards in the California Central Valley

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Irrigation Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Water conservation efforts for California’s agricultural industry are critical to its sustainability through severe droughts like the current one and others experienced over the last two decades. This is most critical for perennial crops, such as vineyards and orchards, which are costly to plant and maintain and constitute a significant fraction of the regional water use. It is no longer feasible to access groundwater for irrigation to replace deficit surface water resources during drought due to a significant overdraft of aquifers and new regulation limiting its use. To achieve significant water savings, the actual crop water use or evapotranspiration (ET) needs to be mapped from field to regional scales on a daily basis. This can only be achieved using remote sensing-based models, particularly thermal-based energy balance models that are sensitive to deficit irrigation conditions. The two-source energy balance (TSEB) model has been successfully applied over vineyards in California, but challenges still remain. In particular, much of the irrigated cropland in the California Central Valley is affected by advection of hot dry air masses from surrounding non-irrigated areas and the TSEB model appears to need modifications to adequately estimate ET under such conditions, as well as the partitioning between evaporation and transpiration. This study investigates the application of the TSEB model, using local observations in a vineyard having significant advection. Four versions of the transpiration algorithm in TSEB are applied and evaluated with tower eddy covariance measurements spanning 4 growing seasons. The results suggest the performance of the original transpiration algorithm based on Priestley–Taylor used in TSEB is satisfactory in all but the most extreme advective conditions, while a transpiration algorithm based on Shuttleworth–Wallace with a canopy resistance formula, which relates maximum stomata conductance to vapor pressure deficit (VPD), performs well in all cases. These modifications have potential for improving regional applications of the TSEB model in support of water management in the Central Valley.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this article is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute official endorsement or approval by the US Department of Agriculture nor the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

References

  • Agam N, Kustas WP, Anderson MC, Norman JM, Colaizzi PD, Howell TA, Prueger JH, Meyers TP, Wilson TB (2010) Application of the Priestley-Taylor approach in a two-source surface energy balance model. J Hydromet 11:185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agam N, Kustas WP, Alfieri JG, Gao F, McKee LM, Prueger JH, Hipps LE (2019) Micro-scale spatial variability in soil heat flux (SHF) in a wine-grape vineyard. Irrig Sci 37:253–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-019-00634-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri JG, Kustas WP, Prueger JH, McKee LG, Hipps LE, Gao F (2019) A multi-year intercomparison of micrometeorological observations at adjacent vineyards in California’s central valley during GRAPEX. Irrig Sci 37:345–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0599-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen RG, Pruitt WO, Wright JL, Howell TA, Ventura F, Snyder R et al (2006) (2006) A recommendation on standardized surface resistance for hourly calculation of reference ETo by the FAO56 Penman-Monteith method. Agric Water Manag 81:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bambach N, Alfieri JG, Prueger JH, Kustas WP, Alsina MM, Hipps LE, McKee LM, Castro-Bustamante S, McElrone, AJ (2022) Canopy level evapotranspiration uncertainty: The impact of different data processing and energy budget closure methods Irrg Sci (in review)

  • Brutsaert W (1982) Evaporation into the atmosphere, theory, history and applications. D. Reidel, Boston, p 299

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brutsaert W, Stricker H (1979) An advection-aridity approach to estimate actual regional evapotranspiration. Water Resour Res 15:443–450. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR015i002p00443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cammalleri C, Anderson MC, Kustas WP (2014) Upscaling of evapotranspiration fluxes from instantaneous to daytime scales for thermal remote sensing applications. Hydrol Earth Sys Sci 18:1885–1894. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1885-2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claverie M, Ju J, Masek JG, Dungan JL, Vermote EF, Roger J-C, Skakun SV, Justice C (2018) The Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 surface reflectance data set. Remote Sens Environ 219:145–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colaizzi PD, Evett SR, Howell TA, Tolk JA (2006) Comparison of five models to scale daily evapotranspiration from one-time-of-day measurements. Tran ASABE 49(5):1409–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colaizzi PD, Kustas WP, Anderson MC, Agam N, Tolk JA, Evett SR, Howell TA, Gowda PH, O’Shaughnessy SA (2012) Two-source energy balance model estimates of evapotranspiration using component and composite surface temperatures. Adv Water Resour 50:134–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colaizzi PD, Agam N, Tolk JA, Evett SR, Howell TA, Gowda PH, O’Shaughnessy SA, Kustas WP, Anderson MC (2014) Two source energy balance model to calculate E, T, and ET: comparison of Priestley-Taylor and Penman-Monteith formulations and two time scaling methods. Trans ASABE 57(2):479–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher JB, Tu KP, Baldocchi DD (2008) Global estimates of the land–atmosphere water flux based on monthly AVHRR and ISLSCP-II data, validated at 16 FLUXNET sites. Remote Sens 112(3):901–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao F, Anderson MC, Daughtry CS, Karnieli A, Hively WD, Kustas WP (2020) A within-season approach for detecting early growth stages in corn and soybean using high temporal and spatial resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ 242:11752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossiord C, Buckley TN, Cernusak LA, Novick KA, Poulter B, Siegwolf RT, Sperry JS, McDowell NG (2020) Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol 226(6):1550–1566. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00096-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington JL, Szilagyi J, Tyler SW, Pohll GM (2011) Evaluating the complementary relationship for estimating evapotranspiration from arid shrublands. Water Resour Res 47:W05533. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis PG (1976) The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 273:593–610. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1976.0035

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis PG, McNaughton KG (1986) Stomatal control of transpiration - scaling up from leaf to region. Adv Ecol Res 15:1–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahler DM, Brutsaert W (2006) Complementary relationship between daily evaporation in the environment and pan evaporation. Water Resour Res 42:W05413. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang Y, Gao F, Anderson MC, Kustas WP, Nieto H, Knipper K, Yang Y, White A, Torres-Rua A, Alsina M, Karneli A (2022) Evaluation of satellite leaf area index in California vineyards for improving water use estimation. Irrig Sci (in review)

  • Knipper K, Kustas WP, Anderson MC, Alsina M, Hain C, Alfieri JG, Prueger JH, Gao F, McKee LG, Sanchez L (2019) Using high-spatiotemporal thermal satellite ET retrievals for near-real time water use and stress monitoring in a California vineyard. Remote Sens 11:2124. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11182124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knipper KR, Kustas WP, Anderson MC, Alfieri JG, Prueger JH, Hain CR, Gao F, McKee LM, Alsina MM, Sanchez L (2020) Using high-spatiotemporal thermal satellite ET retrievals to monitor water use over California vineyards of different climate, vine variety and trellis design. Agric Water Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kustas WP, Anderson MC (2009) Advances in thermal infrared remote sensing for land surface modeling. Agric For Meteorol 149:2071–2081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kustas WP, Norman JM (1999) Evaluation of soil and vegetation heat flux predictions using a simple two-source model with radiometric temperatures for partial canopy cover. Agric For Meteorol 94:13–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kustas WP, Anderson MC, Alfieri JG, Knipper K, Torres-Rua A, Parry CK, Nieto H, Agam N, White A, Gao F, McKee L, Prueger JH, Hipps LE, Los S, Alsina M, Sanchez L, Sams B, Dokoozlian N, McKee M, Jones S, McElrone A, Heitman JL, Howard AM, Post K, Melton F, Hain C (2018) The grape remote sensing atmospheric profile and evapotranspiration eXperiment (GRAPEX). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 9:1791–1812. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0244.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kustas WP, Agam N, Ortega-Farias S (2019a) Forward to the GRAPEX special issue. Irrig Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-019-00633-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kustas WP, Alfieri JG, Nieto H, Gao F, Anderson MC, Prueger JH, Wilson TG (2019b) Utility of the two-source energy balance model TSEB in vine and inter-row flux partitioning over the growing season. Irrig Sci 37:375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0586-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuning R (1995) A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal-photosynthesis model for C3 plants. Plant Cell Environ 18:339–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00370.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu SM, Xu ZW, Wang WZ et al (2011) A comparison of eddy-covariance and large aperture scintillometer measurements with respect to the energy balance closure problem Hydrol Earth. Syst Sci 15:1291

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohammar T, Larsson S, Linder S, Falk SO (1980) FAST: simulation models of gaseous exchange in scots pine. Ecol Bull 32:505–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauder M, Foken T, Cuxart J (2020) Surface-energy-balance closure over land: a review. Bound Layer Meteorol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-020-00529-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton F, Huntington JL, Grimm R, Herring J, Hall M, Rollison D, Erickson T, Allen R, Anderson M, Blankenau P et al (2022) OpenET—filling the biggest data gap in water management for the Western U.S. J Am Water Resour Assoc, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12956

  • Monteith JL (1995) A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant Cell Environ 18:357–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00371.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassar A, Torres-Rua A, Kustas W, Alfieri J, Hipps L, Prueger J, Nieto H, Alsina MM, White W, McKee L (2021) Assessing daily evapotranspiration methodologies from one-time-of-day sUAS and EC Information in the GRAPEX project. Remote Sens 13:2887. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13152887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto H, Kustas WP, Torres-Rúa A, Alfieri JG, Gao F, Anderson MC, White WA, Song L, del Mar AM, Prueger JH, McKee M, Elarab M, McKee LG (2019a) Evaluation of TSEB turbulent fluxes using different methods for the retrieval of soil and canopy component temperatures from UAV thermal and multispectral imagery. Irrig Sci 37:389–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0585-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto H, Kustas WP, Alfieri JG, Gao F, Hipps LE, Los S, Prueger JH, McKee LG, Anderson MC (2019b) Impact of different within canopy wind attenuation formulations on modelling sensible heat flux using TSEB. Irrig Sci 37:315–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0611-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto H, Alsina MM, Kustas WP, Garcia-Tejera O, Chen F, Bambach N, Gao F, Alfieri JG, Hipps LE, Prueger JH, McKee LG, Zahn E, Bou-Zeid E, McElrone A, Castro S, Dokoozlian N (2022) Evaluating different metrics from the thermal-based two-source energy balance model for monitoring grapevine water stress Irrig Sci (in review)

  • Norman JM, Kustas WP, Humes KS (1995) Source approach for estimating soil and vegetation energy fluxes in observations of directional radiometric surface temperature. Agric For Meteorol 77(3–4):263–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry CK, Nieto H, Guillevic P, Agam N, Kustas WP, Alfieri JG, McKee L, McElrone AJ (2019) An intercomparison of radiation partitioning models in vineyard canopies. Irrig Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-019-00621-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100(2):81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth WJ, Wallace JS (1985) Evaporation from sparse crops-an energy combination theory. Q J R Meteorol Soc 111:839–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49711146910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szilagyi J (2007) On the inherent asymmetric nature of the complementary relationship of evaporation. Geophys Res Lett 34:L02405. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C, Martin J, Goeckede M, Siqueira M, Foken T, Law B, Loescher H, Katul G (2008) Estimating daytime subcanopy respiration from conditional sampling methods applied to multi-scalar high frequency turbulence time series. Agric for Meteorol 148(8):1210–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twine TE, Kustas WP, Norman JM, Cook DR, Houser PR, Meyers TP, Prueger JH, Starks PJ, Wesely ML (2000) Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland. Agric For Meteorol 103:279–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White WA, Alsina MM, Nieto H, McKee LG, Gao F, Kustas WP (2018) Determining a robust indirect measurement of leaf area index in California vineyards for validating remote sensing-based retrievals. Irrig Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0614-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Ma Y, Liu S et al (2017) Assessment of the energy balance closure under advective conditions and its impact using remote sensing data. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 56:127–140. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0096.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahn E, Bou-Zeid E, Good S, Katul GG, Thomas C, Ghannam K, Smith JA, Chamecki M, Dias NL, Fuentes JD, Alfieri JG, Kwon H, Caylor K, Gaom Z, Soderberg K, Bambach NE, Hipps LE, Prueger JH, Kustas WP (2022) Direct partitioning of eddy-covariance water and carbon dioxide fluxes into ground and plant components. Agric Forest Meteorol 315:108790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108790

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding and logistical support for the GRAPEX project were provided by E. & J. Gallo Winery and from the NASA Applied Sciences-Water Resources Program (Grant No. NNH17AE39I). This research was also supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. In addition, we thank the staff of Viticulture, Chemistry and Enology Division of E. & J. Gallo Winery for the collection and processing of field data and the cooperation of the vineyard management staff for logistical support and coordinating field operations with the GRAPEX team. We thank Pedro J. Aphalo and Victor Sadras for the fruitful discussion on Monteith's model. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA-ARS, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA

    William P. Kustas, Feng Gao, Joseph G. Alfieri, Martha C. Anderson & Lynn G. McKee

  2. Complutum Tecnologías de la Información Geográfica S.L. Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Hector Nieto

  3. Plant Protection Department, Institute of Agricultural Sciences-CSIC, Madrid, Spain

    Hector Nieto

  4. Department of Agronomy, Institute for Sustainable Agriculture-CSIC, Córdoba, Spain

    Omar Garcia-Tejera

  5. Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Nicolas Bambach

  6. USDA-ARS Crops Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, Davis, CA, USA

    Andrew J. McElrone

  7. Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Andrew J. McElrone

  8. Department of Plants Soils and Climate, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Lawrence E. Hipps

  9. USDA-ARS, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Ames, IA, USA

    John H. Prueger

  10. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Alfonso Torres-Rua

  11. USDA-ARS, Sustainable Agricultural Water Systems Unit, Davis, CA, USA

    Kyle Knipper

  12. E & J Gallo Winery, Viticulture, Chemistry and Enology, Modesto, CA, USA

    Maria Mar Alsina & Nick Dokoozlian

  13. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Einara Zahn & Elie Bou-Zeid

Authors
  1. William P. Kustas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hector Nieto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omar Garcia-Tejera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicolas Bambach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew J. McElrone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Feng Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joseph G. Alfieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lawrence E. Hipps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. John H. Prueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alfonso Torres-Rua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Martha C. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Kyle Knipper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Maria Mar Alsina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Lynn G. McKee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Einara Zahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Elie Bou-Zeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Nick Dokoozlian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William P. Kustas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kustas, W.P., Nieto, H., Garcia-Tejera, O. et al. Impact of advection on two-source energy balance (TSEB) canopy transpiration parameterization for vineyards in the California Central Valley. Irrig Sci 40, 575–591 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-022-00778-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-022-00778-y

Search

Navigation