Status of accuracy in remotely sensed and in-situ agricultural water productivity estimates: A review

被引:70
作者
Blatchford, Megan L. [1 ]
Mannaerts, Chris M. [1 ]
Zeng, Yijian [1 ]
Nouri, Hamideh [2 ]
Karimi, Poolad [3 ]
机构
[1] ITC UTWENTE, Hengelostr 99, NL-7514 AE Enschede, Netherlands
[2] Univ Gottingen, Div Agron, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany
[3] IHE Inst Water Educ, Westvest 7, NL-2611 AX Delft, Netherlands
关键词
Crop water productivity; Crop yield; Evapotranspiration; Remote sensing; In-situ; GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTION; ENERGY-BALANCE CLOSURE; NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION; LIGHT USE EFFICIENCY; EDDY COVARIANCE TECHNIQUE; LAND-SURFACE EVAPORATION; ESTIMATE HARVEST INDEX; LATENT-HEAT FLUX; CROP COEFFICIENTS; BOWEN-RATIO;
D O I
10.1016/j.rse.2019.111413
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The scarcity of water and the growing global food demand has fevered the debate on how to increase agricultural production without further depleting water resources. Crop water productivity (CWP) is a performance indicator to monitor and evaluate water use efficiency in agriculture. Often in remote sensing datasets of CWP and its components, i.e. crop yield or above ground biomass production (AGBP) and evapotranspiration (ETa), the end-users and developers are different actors. The accuracy of the datasets should therefore be clear to both users and developers. We assess the accuracy of remotely sensed CWP against the accuracy of estimated in-situ CWP. First, the accuracy of CWP based on in-situ methods, which are assumed to be the user's benchmark for CWP accuracy, is reviewed. Then, the accuracy of current remote sensing products is described to determine if the accuracy benchmark, as set by in-situ methods, can be met with current algorithms. The percentage error of CWP from in-situ methods ranges from 7% to 67%, depending on method and scale. The error of CWP from remote sensing ranges from 7% to 22%, based on the highest reported performing remote sensing products. However, when considering the entire breadth of reported crop yield and ETa, accuracy, the achievable errors propagate to CWP ranges of 74% to 108%. Although the remote sensing CWP appears comparable to the accuracy of in-situ methods in many cases, users should determine whether it is suitable for their specific application of CWP.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 231 条
[1]  
Abernethy C.L., 1990, S PERF EV IRR SYST 2, P22
[2]   Application of remote sensing for estimating crop water requirements, yield and water productivity of wheat in the Gezira Scheme [J].
Ahmed, Bashir Mohammed ;
Tanakamaru, Haruya ;
Tada, Akio .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, 2010, 31 (16) :4281-4294
[3]   Satellite-based evapotranspiration over Gezira Irrigation Scheme, Sudan: A comparative study [J].
Al Zayed, Islam Sabry ;
Elagib, Nadir Ahmed ;
Ribbe, Lars ;
Heinrich, Juergen .
AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2016, 177 :66-76
[4]  
Allen R. G., 1998, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
[5]  
Allen R. G., 1996, Evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling. Proceedings of the International Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, November 3-6 1996., P124
[6]   Satellite-based energy balance for mapping evapotranspiration with internalized calibration (METRIC) - Applications [J].
Allen, Richard G. ;
Tasumi, Masahiro ;
Morse, Anthon ;
Trezza, Ricardo ;
Wright, James L. ;
Bastiaanssen, Wim ;
Kramber, William ;
Lorite, Ignacio ;
Robison, Clarence W. .
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING, 2007, 133 (04) :395-406
[7]   Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors governing measurement accuracy [J].
Allen, Richard G. ;
Pereira, Luis S. ;
Howell, Terry A. ;
Jensen, Marvin E. .
AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2011, 98 (06) :899-920
[8]   Mapping daily evapotranspiration at field to continental scales using geostationary and polar orbiting satellite imagery [J].
Anderson, M. C. ;
Kustas, W. P. ;
Norman, J. M. ;
Hain, C. R. ;
Mecikalski, J. R. ;
Schultz, L. ;
Gonzalez-Dugo, M. P. ;
Cammalleri, C. ;
d'Urso, G. ;
Pimstein, A. ;
Gao, F. .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2011, 15 (01) :223-239
[9]   Assessing FAO-56 dual crop coefficients using eddy covariance flux partitioning [J].
Anderson, Ray G. ;
Alfieri, Joseph G. ;
Tirado-Corbala, Rebecca ;
Gartung, Jim ;
McKee, Lynn G. ;
Prueger, John H. ;
Wang, Dong ;
Ayars, James E. ;
Kustas, William P. .
AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2017, 179 :92-102
[10]   SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY IN VEGETATION CANOPIES AND REMOTE-SENSING OF ABSORBED PHOTOSYNTHETICALLY ACTIVE RADIATION - A MODELING STUDY [J].
ASRAR, G ;
MYNENI, RB ;
CHOUDHURY, BJ .
REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, 1992, 41 (2-3) :85-103