See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230546542

Satellite‐based ET estimation in agriculture

using SEBAL and METRIC

Article in Hydrological Processes · December 2011

DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8408

CITATIONS READS

69 1,242

6 authors, including:

Richard G Allen Ayse Kilic

University of Idaho University of Nebraska at Lincoln
194 PUBLICATIONS 12,961 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 643 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ricardo Trezza W.G.M. Bastiaanssen

University of Idaho UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education
66 PUBLICATIONS 1,839 CITATIONS 212 PUBLICATIONS 8,773 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ricardo Trezza on 03 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8408

Satellite-based ET estimation in agriculture using SEBAL and

METRIC
Richard Allen,1* Ayse Irmak,2 Ricardo Trezza,3 Jan M. H. Hendrickx,4 Wim Bastiaanssen5,† and
Jeppe Kjaersgaard6
1
Kimberly Research and Extension Center, University of Idaho, Kimberly, ID, USA
2
Civil Engineering/SNR, University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
3
Kimberly R&E Center, University of Idaho, Kimberly, ID, USA
4
Hydrology, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM, USA
5
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geoscience, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
6
Biological Engineering, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA

Abstract:
Surface Energy Balance Algorithms for Land (SEBAL) and Mapping EvapoTranspiration at high Resolution with Internalized
Calibration (METRIC) are satellite-based image-processing models that calculate evapotranspiration (ET) as a residual of a
surface energy balance. Both models are calibrated using inverse modelling at extreme conditions approach to develop image-
specific estimations of the sensible heat flux (H) component of the surface energy balance and to effectively remove systematic
biases in net radiation, soil heat flux, radiometric temperature and aerodynamic estimates. SEBAL and METRIC express the
near-surface temperature gradient as an indexed function of radiometric surface temperature, eliminating the need for absolutely
accurate surface temperature and the need for air temperature measurements. Slope and aspect functions and temperature lapsing
are used in METRIC applications in mountainous terrains. SEBAL and METRIC algorithms are designed for relatively routine
application by trained professionals familiar with energy balance, aerodynamics and basic radiation physics. The primary inputs
for the models are short-wave and long-wave (thermal) images from satellite (e.g. Landsat and MODIS), a digital elevation
model and ground-based weather data measured within or near the area of interest. ET ‘maps’ (i.e. images) developed using
Landsat images provide means to quantify ET on a field basis in terms of both rate and spatial distribution. METRIC takes
advantage of calibration using weather-based reference ET so that both calibration and extrapolation of instantaneous ET to 24-h
and longer periods compensate for regional advection effects where ET can exceed daily net radiation. SEBAL and METRIC
have advantages over conventional methods of estimating ET using crop coefficient curves or vegetation indices in that specific
crop or vegetation type does not need to be known and the energy balance can detect reduced ET caused by water shortage,
salinity or frost as well as evaporation from bare soil. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS evapotranspiration; remote sensing; energy balance; SEBAL; METRIC

Received 2 July 2011; Accepted 9 November 2011

INTRODUCTION heat fluxes can severely impact the performance of optical,

infrared and acoustic sensors used by military, and ET and
Quantifying the consumption of water over large areas and
soil moisture affect operational mobility of military
particularly within irrigated agricultural areas is important
operations and detection of landmines and unexploded
for water resources planning, mitigation of impacts of
ordinance (Miller et al., 2004; van Dam et al., 2005).
reduced streamflow, establishment of hydrologic water
Traditionally, ET from agricultural fields has been
balances, water rights management and water regulation.
estimated by multiplying a weather-based estimate of
Differences between actual and potential ET at high spatial
reference ET by a crop coefficient (Kc) determined according
resolutions are of interest to agriculture, water resources and
to the crop type and the crop growth stage (Allen et al., 1998;
even national security as an indicator of crop water deficits
ASCE-EWRI, 2005). The reference ET estimate approx-
and depletions on scales of human activities and individual
imates an upper limit of ET from an extensive surface of
land holdings. Spatial estimates of ET are essential
healthy vegetation, fully covering the ground and not short of
components of general circulation and hydrologic models
water. This is especially the case with the ‘tall-reference’ of
(Wigmosta et al., 1994; Betts et al., 1997; Overgaard et al.,
ASCE-EWRI (2005) that approximates ET from full-cover
2006), and ET is used to infer soil moisture, a valuable input
alfalfa. In the case of the ‘short-reference’ of ASCE-EWRI
to weather and flood forecast models. Sensible and latent
(2005) and FAO (Allen et al., 1998), which approximates ET
from a short (0.12 m) tall cool-season grass cover, the
*Correspondence to: Richard Allen, University of Idaho, Kimberly reference ET is typically 20–30% lower than the maximum
Research & Extension Center, Kimberly, ID, USA. E-mail: rallen@ ET of taller and leafier vegetation. The Kc incorporates all
kimberly.uidaho.edu
†
Present address: eLEAF, Generaal Foulkesweg 28, 6703 BS, Wageningen, physical and time-based factors that cause a specific
The Netherlands. E-mail: wim.bastiaanssen@eleaf.com vegetation or surface to have different ET and surface energy

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4012 R. ALLEN ET AL.
partitioning than the reference surface. There is typically
some question whether actual vegetative and growing
conditions compare with the conditions represented by the
idealized Kc values, especially in water short areas, where
stomatal regulation can reduce ET to below potential
values for the particular physiological and phenological
conditions. In addition, it is often difficult to monitor or
estimate the crop growth stage conditions over large
populations of crops and fields.
Satellite data are ideally suited for deriving spatially
continuous fields of ET using energy balance techniques.
Surface Energy Balance Algorithms for Land (SEBAL) and
Mapping EvapoTranspiration at high Resolution with
Internalized Calibration (METRIC™) are satellite-based
image-processing tools that calculate ET as a residual of the
energy balance at the earth’s surface. METRIC has, as its
foundation, principles and techniques used by the SEBAL
model developed in the Netherlands and applied worldwide
by Bastiaanssen and his associates (Bastiaanssen, 1995,
2000; Bastiaanssen et al., 1998a, 1998b, 2005). The
innovative component of SEBAL is that the energy balance
modelling uses a near-surface temperature gradient, dT,
which is indexed to radiometric surface temperature, which
has eliminated the need for absolute surface temperature
calibration, which has been a major impediment to
operational satellite ET. METRIC uses the SEBAL
technique for estimating dT, thereby eliminating the need
for absolutely accurate aerodynamic surface temperature and
the need for air temperature measurements for estimating
sensible heat flux at the surface. Both models are calibrated
using inverse modelling at extreme conditions to develop
image-specific estimations of the sensible heat flux (H)
component of the surface energy balance and to effectively
remove many systematic biases in net radiation, soil heat
flux, radiometric temperature and aerodynamic estimates.
Energy balance based models such as METRIC and
SEBAL can have advantages over conventional methods of
estimating ET from crop coefficient curves or vegetation
indices in that crop development stages do not need to be
known, nor do specific crop types. In addition, energy balance
can detect reduced ET caused by water shortage, salinity or
frost as well as increased ET caused by evaporation from bare
soil or water intercepted by plant canopies following wetting
events. METRIC departs from the SEBAL model in its use of
weather-based reference ET to establish energy balance
conditions at a ‘cold’ pixel, as described later, as compared
with traditional SEBAL approaches that assume that all
available energy (composed of net radiation less ground heat
flux) is converted to evaporation at a temperature similar to
that of a local water body. The use of reference ET estimates
establishes a ground reference for the satellite-based actual
ET estimate and takes advantage of confidence in the
standardized Penman–Monteith equation (ASCE-EWRI,
2005) to accurately estimate the reference ET. The use of
reference ET in METRIC for extrapolation of instantaneous
ET to 24-h and longer periods compensates for regional
advection effects and does not tie the 24-h ET to an
evaporative fraction (EF) that is based on net radiation
because ET can exceed daily net radiation in many arid or
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
semi-arid locations. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1,
where the measured ET of alfalfa is plotted with 24-h net
radiation. In some cases, the ratios of ET to Rn, i.e. the EF,
increase to more than 2.0 during late summer when advection
of energy from desert areas upwind of the irrigated area
surrounding Kimberly, Idaho, substantially increases ET. The
lysimeter measurements shown in Figure 1 can be reproduced
using the ASCE-EWRI Penman–Monteith equation.
The METRIC and SEBAL models are designed to
function as operational models for producing maps of ET
for focused regions smaller than a few hundred kilometres in
scale and at high resolution. This contrasts with some remote
sensing models that are more generally based and are
designed for routine application over larger regions (for
example, over subcontinents), such as the Atmosphere–Land
Exchange Inverse (ALEXI) model (Anderson et al., 2004,
2007) and the feedback method of Granger (1989, 2000). The
narrowed focus provides estimates of ET at relatively high
resolution (~30 m), but does come at a cost, in the requirement
for trained experts having good background in energy balance
and radiation physics and adequate knowledge of vegetation
characteristics and agricultural practices.
Theoretical basis
The theoretical and computational basis of SEBAL is
described in Bastiaanssen et al. (1998a; 2005) and
Bastiaanssen (2000). The basis and principles for METRIC
are described in Allen et al. (2007a). Although satellites
routinely measure surface reflectance and some measure sur-
face temperature, none measure near-surface vapour content or
vapour flux. Therefore, ET is determined by applyingan energy
balance at the surface, where energy consumed by the ET pro-
cess is calculated as a residual of the surface energy equation:
LE ¼ Rn  G  H (1)
where LE is the latent energy consumed by ET, Rn is net
radiation (sum of all incoming and outgoing short-wave and
long-wave radiation at the surface), G is sensible heat flux
conducted into the ground, and H is sensible heat flux
convected to the air. Energy absorbed into the canopy and
by photosynthesis is generally less than a few % and is
ignored in Equation (1). A utility of using energy balance
Figure 1. Comparison of 24-h evapotranspiration from alfalfa, as
measured by lysimeter, near Kimberly, Idaho, USA, (data by Dr J. L.
Wright, USDA-ARS (ret.)) over a growing season and during periods of
effective ground cover with estimated 24-h net radiation
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC
over vegetation-based methods is that actual ET rather than
potential ET (based on amount of vegetation) is computed
so that reductions in ET caused by stresses caused by
disease, salinity or shortage of soil moisture are captured. A
disadvantage of the energy balance approach is that the
computation of LE is only as accurate as the estimates for Rn,
G, and H. METRIC and SEBAL attempt to overcome this
disadvantage by focusing internal calibration on LE and
using H to absorb intermediate estimation errors and biases.
The METRIC and SEBAL models are, in some ways,
‘open platforms’ where algorithms for estimating components
such as Rn, G, emissivity, aerodynamic roughness, and so on
can be replaced with alternative algorithms at the user’s
preference. The primary distinction of the models is in the way
that they are inverse calibrated and in how they use surface
temperature as a means to distribute, spatially, air temperature
gradients during calculation of H so that absolute accuracy
requirements of surface temperature can be relaxed. The
following section describes general forms of equations used
for Rn, G and subcomponents of H to provide an indication of
how these components can be formulated and estimated and
how operational applications have been formulated.
In METRIC, Rn is computed from satellite-measured
narrowband reflectance and surface temperature using
algorithms described in Allen et al. (2007a). G is commonly
estimated in METRIC and SEBAL as a fraction of Rn, on the
basis of surface temperature, for low amounts of vegetation
and as a function of vegetation indices when vegetation
cover is present (Bastiaanssen et al., 1998a; Allen et al.,
2007a). More recent METRIC applications have estimated
G as a function of H following suggestions by Brutsaert
(1982) and Stull (1988). Sensible heat flux in METRIC and
SEBAL is estimated from surface temperature, surface
roughness and wind speed using buoyancy corrections.
Net radiation. Net radiation flux at the surface (Rn)
represents the radiant energy at the surface that is partitioned
into H, G and LE. Rn is computed by subtracting all outgoing
radiant fluxes from all incoming radiant fluxes and includes
solar and thermal radiation:
Rn ¼ RS#  aRS# þ RL#  RL#  ð1  eo ÞRL# (2)
where RS# is incoming short-wave radiation (W m2), a is
surface albedo (dimensionless), RL# is incoming long-wave
radiation (W m2), RL" is outgoing long-wave radiation
(W m2) and eo is broadband surface thermal emissivity
(dimensionless). The (1  eo)RL# term represents the
fraction of incoming long-wave radiation reflected from
the surface. RS# is estimated as a function of time, day of
year, location, terrain slope and aspect, assuming clear-sky
conditions, because clear sky is a prerequisite to a useable
satellite image. In applications to mountainous terrain, RS#
varies widely, spatially, and must be calculated from a
digital elevation model and transmissivity estimate that
varies with atmospheric thickness. Studies by Allen (1996)
and ASCE-EWRI (2005) have shown calculated RS# for
clear-sky conditions to have similar accuracy as measured
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4013
RS# from automated weather stations because of common
problems associated with measurements such as sensor
level, calibration drift and cleanliness. Bulk transmissivity is
calculated using a general function from ASCE-EWRI
(2005) according to the estimated water vapour content of
the atmosphere, sun angle and air mass by using similar
functional forms as for narrowband reflectances (Tasumi
et al., 2008). The estimation of transmissivity is only
moderately sensitive to the estimate for atmospheric water
vapour, especially when used in the inverse-calibrated
METRIC and SEBAL, so that precipitable water vapour, W,
can be estimated from measured or estimated near-surface
vapour pressure from a representative weather station,
according to the equation by Garrison and Adler (1990):
W ¼ 0:14ea Pair þ 2:1 (3)
where ea is near-surface vapour pressure (kPa) and W is in
millimetre. Tasumi et al. (2008) demonstrated Equation (3) to
estimate similarly to retrievals for W from Moderate-resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). Trigonometric
equations for estimating the influence of sun angle, terrain
slope and aspect on incoming solar radiation are given by
Duffie and Beckman (1991) and repeated by Allen et al.
(2007a).
Surface albedo. Surface albedo, the ratio of reflected solar
radiation to the incident solar (short-wave) radiation at the
surface, represents the integrated reflectance across the short-
wave spectrum (0.2 to 3.2 mm). Albedo is generally calculated
in METRIC and SEBAL by integrating surface reflectivities
from representative satellite bands that fall within regions of
high atmospheric transmissivity, for example, bands 1–5 and 7
of Landsat, bands 1–7 of MODIS and bands 1–9 of Advanced
Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Weighting coefficients are applied to each band when
estimating albedo (Liang, 2000; Tasumi et al., 2008).
‘At-satellite’ or ‘top of atmosphere’ bidirectional reflect-
ance (rt,b), is converted into at-surface reflectance, rs,b, that is
needed to calculate surface albedo. Atmospheric correction
for the narrowband reflectances is generally made using
simple humidity and sun angle based algorithms reported by
Tasumi et al. (2008). It is assumed that the bidirectional at-
surface reflectance is similar to the directional–hemispherical
reflectance required for the surface energy balance. This is
generally a good assumption (Tasumi et al., 2008), except for
tall vegetation such as trees or corn when observed by a nadir-
looking satellite such as Landsat. In those cases, the satellite
may view a disproportionate amount of shadows, causing an
underestimation of reflectance and albedo. Empirical
corrections are derived and applied in some applications on
the basis of field studies of nadir to hemispherical albedo over
corn, wheat and alfalfa by Allen, Zhao and Li (pers. comm.,
2011). These corrections can be based on bidirectional
reflectance distribution factors. Atmospheric correction can
be performed using more sophisticated models such as
MODTRAN (Berk et al., 1999) that account for impacts of
humidity, temperature and aerosol profiles on scattering and
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
4014 R. ALLEN ET AL.
absorption. Those models require good background know-
ledge of the correction model and the software programme,
which is not common to all ET model operators. As described
later, in METRIC and SEBAL, small biases in rs,b resulting
from using a simplified atmospheric correction procedure are
largely corrected for during the internal calibration of sensible
heat flux.
Outgoing long-wave radiation. Outgoing long-wave
radiation, RL", emitted from the surface is driven by
surface temperature and surface emissivity. RL" is
computed using the Stefan–Boltzmann equation:
RL" ¼ eo sTs 4 (4)
where eo is the broadband surface emissivity (dimension-
less), s is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67  108 W
m2 K4) and Ts is surface temperature (K). Surface
emissivity is usually computed in METRIC and SEBAL
using empirical functions based on estimated leaf area or
fraction of ground covered by vegetation (Allen et al.,
2007a). The range in both broadband and narrowband e is
generally estimated to be small, lying between 0.95 for
many soil types and 0.97 for vegetation and water (MODIS
UCSB Emissivity Library, 2004; Hulley and Hook, 2009).
Surface temperature (Ts) is computed for Landsat images
using a modified Plank equation following Markham and
Barker (1986) with atmospheric and surface emissivity
correction using a corrected thermal radiance from the
surface, Rc, based on spectral radiance Lt,6 from band 6 of
Landsat, which is the thermal band. Rc is calculated following
Wukelic et al. (1989) as
Lt;6  Rp
Rc ¼  ð1  eNB ÞRsky (5)
tNB
where Lt,6 the spectral radiance of Landsat band 6 (W m2
sr1 mm1), Rp is the path radiance in the 10.4–12.5 mm band
(W m2 sr1 mm1), Rsky is the narrowband downward
thermal radiation from a clear sky (W m2 sr1 mm1) and
tNB is the narrowband transmissivity of air (10.4–12.5 mm
range). Units for Rc are W m2 sr1 mm1. Values for Rp and
tNB can be improved through the use of an atmospheric
radiation transfer simulation model such as MODTRAN. In
the absence of an atmospheric correction model, the standard
corrections for Rc are invoked, on the basis of a central
calibration of Equation (5), by setting Rp = 0, tNB = 1 and
Rsky = 0. If these standard values are used, then biases
introduced in this step are accounted for during the calibration
of the dT function as described later. Allen et al. (2007a)
found the use of uncorrected Rc, (Rp = 0, tNB = 1 and Rsky = 0)
to have good accuracy in the range 260 < Ts < 285 K in
Idaho, with underestimation of Ts by about 3 to 4 K at Ts
around 315 K. However, the bias was relatively linear with Ts
and was therefore generally compensated for during the
establishment of the dT function. Allen et al. (2007a)
suggested mean values of Rp = 0.91 W m2 sr1 mm1, tNB =
0.866 and Rsky = 1.32 W m2 sr1 mm1 for applications in
the western USA (having a semi-arid climate) based on
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
applications of MODTRAN during spring, summer and
autumn. Atmospherically corrected Ts products are soon to
become available as standard, universal products from the
USGS EROS data centre.
Incoming long-wave radiation (RL#). Incoming long-
wave radiation is the downward thermal radiation flux
originating from the atmosphere (W m2) and is tradition-
ally computed in simple operational models such as SEBAL
and METRIC using the Stefan–Boltzmann equation:
RL# ¼ ea sTa 4 (6)
where ea is the effective atmospheric emissivity (dimen-
sionless) and Ta is near-surface air temperature (K). An
empirical equation for ea by Bastiaanssen (1995) has been
applied in many applications of METRIC using coefficients
developed by Allen et al. (2000) using data collected over
alfalfa in Idaho:
ea ¼ 0:85 ðlntsw Þ0:09 (7)
where tsw is the broadband atmospheric transmissivity for
short-wave radiation. The original coefficients by Bas-
tiaanssen (1995), derived for western Egypt, were ea = 1.08
 (lntsw)0.265. Equation (7) works well with remote
sensing of energy balance because the transmissivity term
changes automatically with change in elevation for images
having mountainous terrain and with atmospheric water
vapour when the term is estimated using algorithms
containing pressure and humidity components (ASCE-
EWRI, 2005). Other methods for estimating RL# or tsw can
be employed at the discretion of the user. The Ta parameter
in Equation (6) is assumed to be highly correlated with
effective (radiometric) atmospheric temperature. In some
applications of SEBAL and METRIC, the surface
temperature, Ts, of each image pixel has been used as a
surrogate for Ta in Equation (6), which suggests that
incoming long-wave radiation varies across an image in
proportion to the underlying surface temperature. However,
this can cause estimates for RL# to vary over heterogenous
vegetation by as much as 100 W m2 over short distances,
which is unrealistic because atmospheric conditions (and
effective temperature) tend to be relatively homogeneous
within a region. Allen et al. (2007a) recommended
estimating the Ta in Equation (6) from the ‘cold pixel’ used
during calibration of METRIC because at that condition, H
is generally small and therefore Ta ~ Ts. This has been
confirmed using incoming RL# measurements from desert
and irrigated settings (Allen and Kjaersgaard, 2009,
unpublished data and analyses). The cold pixel Ts value
was found by Allen and Kjaersgaard to be a good predictor of
the effective atmospheric temperature, even for desert
portions of an image. Therefore, the cold pixel Ts value is
used throughout a Landsat sized image (160  160 km2), but
with adjustment for lapse effects in mountainous terrain to
simulate the net cooling of temperature aloft with elevation.
Soil heat flux (G): Soil heat flux is the rate of heat storage
into the soil and vegetation due to conduction. Often, G is
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC
estimated as a function of net radiation and amount of
vegetation that functions as both a shading mechanism and
insulative cover (Choudhury et al., 1987; Bastiaanssen
et al., 1998a; Kustas et al. 1998). A wide range of functions
are in existence for application to a variety of soil types or
vegetation conditions or because of varying experiences of
the appliers. General functions for G that are common to
SEBAL and METRIC applications and that estimate a ratio
G/Rn include that by Bastiaanssen (2000) representing
values near midday:
G

¼ ðTs  273:15Þð0:0038 þ 0:0074aÞ 1  0:98NDVI 4
Rn
(8)
where Ts is the surface temperature (K), a is surface albedo
and NDVI is the normalized difference vegetation index
computed from bands 3 and 4 of Landsat. G is then
calculated by multiplying G/Rn by Rn. An alternative that
has also been applied in METRIC was developed by Tasumi
(2003) using soil heat flux data collected by Dr J. L. Wright,
USDA-ARS for irrigated crops near Kimberly, Idaho:
G
¼ 0:05 þ 0:18e0:521LAI ðLAI≥0:5Þ (9a)
Rn
G agricultural soils, on the basis of the assumption that reduced
¼ 1:80ðTs  273:15Þ=Rn þ 0:084 ðLAI < 0:5Þ
Rn
(9b)
Later applications of Equation (9a) (Allen, 2010,
interoffice memo) have used a coefficient of 0.10 rather
than 0.18 to estimate G for a ‘cool’ or ‘moist’ surface
condition on the basis of data from Wright (USDA-ARS,
Kimberly, ID, pers. comm., 2002) for a silt loam soil and
southern Idaho irrigated row crops. Singh et al. (2009, 2008)
developed a function similar to (9a), except using NDVI, on
the basis of data from Nebraska corn for use in SEBAL:
G been applied, where G/Rn can be very large, even exceeding
¼ 0:3811e0:232NDVI (10)
Rn
Equation (8) suggests that G/Rn increases with increasing
albedo (indicative of bare soils that often have high reflection)
and decreases with increasing vegetation (due to shading by
the canopy). Equations (9a) and (10) suggest that G/Rn
decreases with increasing leaf area, for the same reason, and
Equation ((9b)) suggests that for bare soil, G increases in
proportion to surface temperature. An alternative approach
explored by Allen (2010, interoffice memo) for bare or nearly
bare soil conditions follows the suggestion of Brutsaert (1982)
and Stull (1988) to express G as a function of H. This approach
allows H to function as a surrogate for Ts, but with wider
applicability, because the Ts used in Equation (9b) will show
seasonality that may be independent of G. Values for H are
relatively high for dry, bare soil, and lower for wet, cool soil, as
is generally the case for G (more energy is consumed by LE).
METRIC applications now use the following method when
LAI < 0.5 based on the data by Wright at Kimberly:
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4015
G ¼ maxð0:4H; 0:15Rn Þ (11)
The ‘max’ function selects the larger of the two values.
Equation (11) forces G to be at least as large as 0.15Rn, which is
a common minimum for moist bare soil and is estimated by
Equation (9a) when LAI = 0.0 and the 0.10 coefficient is used,
representing moist soil conditions. The ‘max’ function causes
the estimate for G to go higher when H is greater than 0.38Rn,
representing drier soil conditions. Kustas et al. (1998) and
Anderson et al. (2007) have estimated larger G/Rn ratios for
bare soil than Equations (8) -11) in applications of the ALEXI
model, where often G/Rn = 0.31.
Equations (8) -11) represent G/Rn for general agricultural
soils that have been tilled within the last few hundred days
and do not exhibit a large amount of cracking or delaminated
crust (Allen et al., 2007a). When estimating G for desert
soils, near-surface thermal conductivities may be smaller
than for tilled soils because of cracks, delaminated crust,
lack of structure or very low soil-water contents, causing the
ratio of G/Rn or G/H to reduce, even when these conditions
may cause the Ts of the soil skin to increase. The cause is
reduced contact of soil particles at depth or very low thermal
conductance due to very dry soil. In these situations,
standard METRIC applications reduce the estimate for G in
proportion to elevation of Ts above that of dry, bare, tilled
G of the soil is a partial cause of the elevation of Ts. In
situations where the surface is covered by senesced
vegetation such as harvested grain or wetland vegetation,
G can be small, even for low LAI or NDVI conditions,
because the senesced vegetation functions as an insulator of
the surface.
The heat storage in water estimated at the satellite
overpass time can have large uncertainties, as G varies with
water depth, turbidity and time of year. These parameters
impact the depth of penetration and conversion of solar
radiation into thermal storage. In some applications of
METRIC to water bodies, time-based functions for G have
0.5 for clear, deep water bodies (Allen and Tasumi, 2005).
G/Rn will be less than 0.5 for turbid or shallow water bodies
because of the absorption of short-wave radiation nearer the
water surface for turbid water and reflection of solar
radiation from and warming by the bottom for shallow
systems. For applications where the evaporation from open
water and snow is of particular interest, an aerodynamic
procedure as described by Allen (2010) has been used in
place of the energy balance.
Sensible heat flux: In both METRIC and SEBAL, H
(W m2) is estimated from an aerodynamic function where
dT
H ¼ rair Cp (12)
rah;1;2
where rair is air density (kg m3), Cp is specific heat of air at
constant pressure (J kg1 K1) and rah,1,2 is aerodynamic
resistance (s m1) between two near-surface heights, z1 and z2
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
4016 R. ALLEN ET AL.

(generally 0.1 and 2 m above the zero-plane displacement

height) computed as a function of estimated aerodynamic
roughness of the particular pixel. In METRIC, the rah,1,2
calculation uses wind speed extrapolated from some blending
height above the ground surface (typically 100 to 200 m) and
an iterative stability correction scheme based on the Monin–
Obukhov functions (Allen et al., 1996). The dT parameter (K)
represents the near-surface temperature difference between z1
and z2. dT is used in Equation (12) because of the difficulty in
estimating surface temperature (Ts) accurately from satellites
due to uncertainty in atmospheric attenuation or contamin-
ation and radiometric calibration of the sensor and due to the
unknown value for air temperature, Ta, above any particular
surface in an image, where Ta can vary by more than 5  C
between cold and dry conditions. Equation (12) is relatively
unique to SEBAL and METRIC and contrasts with classical
approaches where H is estimated using Ts and Ta as

Ts  Ta
H ¼ rair Cp (13)
rah

where rah is aerodynamic resistance (s m1) between the

surface and some height z2. Both Ts and Ta in Equation (13)
can have uncertainties that are greater than their differences,
causing large error in the estimate for H. In addition, the
calculation of rah from the surface requires estimation of the
aerodynamic roughness length for sensible heat transfer, zoh,
which is often uncertain. In contrast, the temperature
gradient dT in Equation (12) is specified to describe a
vertical temperature gradient having endpoints that are both
above the surface, beyond the heights for sensible heat
roughness and zero-plane displacement. The intent is to
estimate dT and H in a blended zone lying above both soil
and vegetation. The blending zone is proposed to be
sufficiently mixed, regarding the underlying blend of
vegetation and soil, so that a single temperature gradient,
dT, may exist or at least can be formulated to describe the
blend of localized dT within a 30-m satellite pixel, for
example. The location of the dT function is shown in the top
figure of Figure 2 as the vertical distance between the two
large circular symbols. The z1 and z2 heights have often been
set at 0.1 and 2 m above the zero-plane displacement + zom
height. This can be varied, however. The idea of elevating
dT above the surface is to eliminate the need to estimate zoh
and to avoid the need to estimate the partitioning of LE
between E and T and degree of clumping of vegetation. It is
the blended dT that Bastiaanssen et al. (1998a) found to be
linearly related to radiometric surface temperature, Ts. dT is
approximated as a relatively simple linear function of Ts as
pioneered by Bastiaanssen (1995):
dT ¼ a þ bTs datum (14)
where a and b are empirically determined constants for a
given satellite image and Ts datum is surface temperature
adjusted to a common elevation datum for each image pixel
using a digital elevation model and customized lapse rate.
Bastiaanssen (1995) provided empirical evidence for using
the linear relation between dT and Ts. Allen et al. (2007a)
suggested that theoretically, assuming some essentially
Figure 2. Interactive, two-layer, five-source model (top); Patch, two-source
model (middle); Interactive, two-source model (bottom) for sensible heat
flux, where soil is partially wetted. The top figure contains overlays of
temperature profiles (not to scale) associated with each resistance point at a
surface and their presumed blending to Ta above the canopy
constant temperature at a blended height well above the
surface, for example at 100–200 m, where temperature is
nearly independent of H, and with all instability effects
incorporated into rah,1,2, Equation (12) suggests that dT, and
thus Ts, will be largely proportional to H for a fixed
aerodynamic condition. Therefore, one can anticipate a
segment of the lower temperature profile, represented by dT,
to be proportional to both H and to Ts. The application of
((14)) appears to extend well across a range of surface
roughnesses because as roughness increases and rah
decreases, dT, for the same value of H, decreases because
of more efficient transfer of H, and Ts reduces for the same
reason. The determination of a and b is described in a
following section. The use of dT indexed to Ts that does not
rely on absolute values for Ts substantially reduces error in the
calculation of H. This approach constitutes one of the
pioneering components of the SEBAL model of Bastiaanssen
(1995). The use of Ts datum in Equation (14) compensates for

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC
cooling impacts on Ts because of increasing elevation within
an image that are not related to dT and sensible heat flux.
The blending nature of the dT formulation. The
resistance/temperature gradient based model of Equation
(13) assumes that a blended air temperature condition and
profile exists at some point above a vegetation canopy–
soil surface where the two endpoints of dT can be
established. This assumption permits the application of a
‘single-layer–blended model’ that is used in SEBAL and
METRIC. Figure 2 shows resistance diagrams for three
sensible heat flux models for a sparse canopy condition
where soil between and beneath the canopy comprises four
conditions: shaded or sunlit and wet (or moist) or dry. These
conditions often exist with row crops, forests and riparian
systems, and the four combinations of shaded–dry, shaded–
wet, sunlit–wet and sunlit–dry are often observed even in
nonirrigated conditions, especially a few days after a rain
event when exposure to direct solar beam and shielding of
rain by the canopy create the possibility for these conditions.
Differences in Ts between the four conditions can be as great
as 20 K. The top diagram of Figure 2 is a more complete and
true resistance model for this type of situation, where four
different endpoints of Ts exist, connected to a canopy level,
blended air temperature, Tac, by four aerodynamic resis-
tances, rhsD, rhsW, rheD and rheW, where subscript s
corresponds to shaded, e to exposed, D to dry and W to
wet. Tac is presumed to be a blending of within canopy of air
temperature that is influenced from the above canopy
blended air temperature, Ta, and the four soil suface
temperature and a bulk vegetation canopy temperature, Tc.
This may not be a valid assumption under calm wind
conditions where buoyancy-induced transfer dominates.
The top figure contains overlays of temperature profiles (not
to scale nor correct shape) associated with each resistance
point at a surface and their presumed blending to Ta above
the canopy. In Equation (12), the near-surface dT
temperature gradient is presumed to ‘float’ within the
blended zone above the canopy, or slightly into the
canopy, where a single gradient and a single aerodynamic
resistance, rah, is assumed to describe the conditions of
sensible heat transfer.
The SEBAL–METRIC blended layer model contrasts
with resistance models commonly used in ‘two-source’
models such as the ‘patch’ type of model shown in Figure 2
(middle), where a bulk vegetation canopy temperature is
separate from a bulk soil surface temperature. The within
canopy temperatures above soil and below canopy top are
allowed to have separate values in the patch model, where
different near-surface aerodynamic resistances (rhs and rhc)
and different boundary layer resistances (ras and rac) are
estimated. Care is needed with this type of two-source patch
model when combining the four possible soil surface
temperatures into a single bulk temperature that matches that
viewed by satellite. This precludes estimating that bulk
temperature using near-surface soil-water content or some
means of energy balance partitioning. It can also preclude
accurate estimation of Rn at the soil surface because of
difficulties in estimating outgoing long-wave radiation that
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4017
can vary by as much as 100 W m2 among the four conditions
because of large differences in Ts of individual components.
The lower part of Figure 2 is a common interactive two-
layer model, such as is used in the popular Two-Source
Energy Balance (TSEB) submodel of ALEXI (Anderson
et al., 2008). This model contains similar simplifications
through the use of a single bulk soil surface temperature and a
single bulk canopy temperature. The interactive two-source
model connects H from soil and canopy through two near-
surface aerodynamic resistances (rh1 and rh2) to a canopy
level, blended air temperature, Tac, similar to the more
complete five-source model of Figure 2(top). In some
applications of the two-source model, Rn at the soil surface
is estimated as some sort of extinction function based on LAI.
In reality, depending on the architecture of the canopy and
clumping, significant portions of the soil may be in direct
sunlight, for example with row crops and trees. In this case,
the Rn at the surface will likely be underestimated. Most
currently applied versions of TSEB use a two-stream radiative
transfer model that does account for substrate shading as a
function of solar angle. The net long-wave radiation at the soil
surface can be 100 W m2 smaller than that of a canopy,
depending on the soil temperature, which can be 20–30 K
hotter than canopy when exposed and dry. Depending on how
the estimation of G is tied to Rn or assumptions on relative
wetness or dryness of the soil surface in the model, the G
estimate will likewise be impacted.
Although the two-source models shown in Figure 2 have
more terms than the blended single-layer model of SEBAL
and METRIC, they still must simplify the simulation of soil
surface temperature distribution by combining various source
areas shown in Figure 2. Applications must overcome
uncertainties in describing and modelling the ‘clumping’ of
vegetation on the surface, especially when applied to satellite-
scale images containing many vegetation types and commu-
nities and the impact on the partitioning of the bulk
radiometric temperature, Ts, of the satellite image into Tc
and Ts bulk soil. The partitioning of Ts is sometimes carried out
by assigning LE estimated by the net radiation-based
Priestley–Taylor (1972) equation to vegetation and then
estimating bulk soil surface temperature via iterative
estimation of sensible heat fluxes from soil and canopy.
The LE estimated by the Priestley–Taylor equation, however,
rarely exceeds the value of Rn, which, as shown in Figure 1,
can underestimate LE from vegetation by a factor of 2 under
strong advective conditions (Figure 1), and can thereby
assign incorrect temperatures to the vegetation and soil
surfaces. In a recent study of multipliers on the Priestley–
Taylor equation, Agam et al. (2010) found similar
underestimation when used in a two-source model under
high vapour pressure deficit conditions. This underestimation
could induce substantial error in estimation of buoyancy-
induced convective transfer from soil and canopy in the more
simple two-source models because of the incorrect estima-
tion of surface temperatures as well as substantial error in the
partitioning of ET into E and T.
Although they are more simple than many two-source
models, the blended temperature gradient models such as
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
4018 R. ALLEN ET AL.
SEBAL and METRIC use inverse modelling during
calibration, described later, to reduce biases in the final
ET estimate. In these models, the aerodynamic and
gradient components are essentially blended to fit similar
blending presented by the satellite (30 to 120 m
resolution) (Rn, G, Ts and zom are all derived from
blended information). METRIC differs from previous
applications of SEBAL principally in how the
‘H function’ is calibrated for each specific satellite image,
where METRIC uses reference ET as a calibration
vehicle, whereas SEBAL uses Rn.
Aerodynamic transport. The value for rah,1,2 is calcu-
lated between the two heights z1 and z2 in SEBAL and
METRIC. The value for rah,1,2 is strongly influenced by
buoyancy within the boundary layer driven by the rate of
sensible heat flux. Because both rah,1,2 and H are
unknown at each pixel, an iterative solution is required.
During the first iteration, rah,1,2 is computed assuming
neutral stability:
 
ln zz21
rah;1;2 ¼ (15)
u k
where z1 and z2 are heights above the zero-plane
displacement of the vegetation where the endpoints of dT
are defined, u* is friction velocity (m s1) and k is von
Karman’s constant (0.41). Friction velocity u* is computed
during the first iteration using the logarithmic wind law for
neutral atmospheric conditions:
k u200
u ¼   (16)
ln 200
zom
where u200 is the wind speed (m s1) at a blending height
assumed to be 200 m and zom is the momentum roughness
length (m). zom is a measure of the form drag and skin
friction for the layer of air that interacts with the surface. u* is
computed for each pixel inside the process model using a
specific roughness length for each pixel but with u200
assumed to be constant over all pixels of the image because
it is defined as occurring at a ‘blending height’ unaffected by
surface features. Equations (15) and ((16)) support the use of
a temperature gradient defined between two heights that are
both above the surface. This allows one to estimate rah,1,2
without having to estimate a second aerodynamic roughness
for sensible heat transfer (zoh) because height z1 is defined to
be at an elevation above zoh. This is an advantage because zoh
can be difficult to estimate for sparse vegetation.
The wind speed at an assumed blending height (200 m)
above the weather station, u200, is calculated as
 
uw ln z200
u200 ¼  
omw
(17)
zx
ln zomw
where uw is wind speed measured at a weather station at zx
height above the surface and zomw is the roughness length for
the weather station surface, similar to Allen and Wright (1997).
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
All units for z are the same. The value for u200 is assumed
constant for the satellite image. This assumption is
required for the use of a constant relation between dT and
Ts to be extended across the image (Allen et al., 2007a).
Tasumi et al. (2005b) showed the calibration of
METRIC to be relatively insensitive to the systematic
error in the value for zom. In METRIC, the momentum
roughness length (zom) is estimated for each pixel
according to land use type or amount of vegetation.
General land use type is used where the variation in zom as
a function of vegetation amount is not well established.
General values are given in Brutsaert (1982) and Allen
et al. (1996). In agricultural areas, zom, and in turn crop
height, is generally proportional to leaf area index (LAI),
and is therefore calculated as a function of LAI for ‘short’
agricultural crops (less than about 1 m in height) using a
relationship from Tasumi (2003):
zom ¼ 0:018 LAI (18)
where zom has units in metres and LAI is dimensionless. A
minimum value for zom = 0.005 m represents roughness
typical of bare agricultural soils. Equation (18) tends to
underestimate zom for corn, which is typically 2 to 3 m in
height (Tasumi, 2003), and a different function may be
preferred for vines and trees. Because of the difficulties in
estimating zom from a general function of LAI for all
vegetation types within an image, Bastiaanssen (2000)
suggested customizing a function for zom based on NDVI
that is developed for each satellite image:
zom ¼ exp½ða1 NDVI Þ þ b1  (19a)
or, as modified by Allen (2002):
zom ¼ exp½ða1 NDVI=aÞ þ b1  (19b)
where a1 and b1 are regression constants derived from a
plot of ln(zom) versus NDVI or ln(zom) versus NDVI/a for
two or more conditions in the image representing specific
vegetation types. Equations (19a) and (19b) must be fitted
to local vegetation and conditions. Generally, a is lower
for taller vegetation such as trees because of shading.
Therefore, the use of albedo helps to distinguish between
tall and short vegetation types that may have similar
NDVI but different albedo. Variations on Equations (19a)
and (19b) can be explored by the user to improve the
predictive accuracy, including the use of other para-
meters. Current applications of METRIC use a function
by Perrier (1982) to estimate zom for forested land uses
and agricultural orchards (where they can be identified),
which provides more accurate estimates for both sparse
systems and tall vegetation. The Perrier function uses
estimates of LAI and tree height to estimate impacts of
sparseness and height (Kjaersgaard and Allen, 2010;
Santos et al., 2011) and estimates similarly to functions
by Raupach (1994) but with fewer data requirements.
The effects of mountainous terrain and elevation on
wind speed are complicated and difficult to quantify
(Oke, 1987). In METRIC, zom or wind speed for image
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC 4019
 
pixels in mountains are adjusted using a suite of 1 þ xð2mÞ 2
Ψ h ð2mÞ ¼ 2ln (24a)
algorithms to account for the following impacts: 2
 
• Terrain roughness – the standard deviation of 1 þ xð0:1mÞ 2
elevation within a 1.5-km radius is used to estimate Ψ h ð0:1mÞ ¼ 2ln (24b)
2
an additive to zom to account for vortex and
channelling impacts of turbulence. where
• Elevation effect on velocity – the relative elevation  
within a 1.5 km radius is used to estimate a relative 200 0:25
increase in wind speed based on slope. xð200mÞ ¼ 1  16 (25a)
L
• Reduction of wind speed on leeward slopes – when
the general wind direction aloft can be estimated in a  0:25
2
mountainous terrain, then a reduction factor is made xð2mÞ ¼ 1  16 (25b)
to wind speed on leeward slopes using relative L
elevation and amount of slope as factors.  
0:1 0:25
xð0:1mÞ ¼ 1  16 (25c)
These algorithms have been developed for western L
Oregon and are being tested in Idaho, Nevada and Montana
and are described in an article in preparation (Allen and
Trezza, 2011). Allen and Trezza (2011) also refined the Values for x(200m), x(2m) and x(0.1m) have no meaning when
estimation of diffuse radiation on steep mountainous slopes. L ≥ 0 and their values are set to 1.0.
For L > 0 (stable conditions),
Iterative solution for rah,1,2. During subsequent iterations  
for the solution for H, a corrected value for u* is computed as 2
Ψ mð200mÞ ¼ 5 (26)
L
u k
u ¼   200 (20)  
zom  Ψ m ð200mÞ
ln 200 2
Ψ hð2mÞ ¼ 5 (27a)
L
where cm(200m) is the stability correction for momentum  
transport at 200 m (Equation (23) or (26)). A corrected value 0:1
for rah,1,2 is computed each iteration as Ψ hð0:1mÞ ¼ 5 (27b)
L
 
ln zz21  Ψ h ðz2 Þ þ Ψ h ðz1 Þ
rah;1;2 ¼ (21) When L = 0, the stability values are set to 0. Equation (26)
u  k uses a value of 2 m rather than 200 m for z because it is
where ch(z2) and ch(z1) are the stability corrections for heat assumed that under stable conditions, the height of the stable
transport at z2 and z1 heights (Equations (24a, 24b) or (27a, inertial boundary layer is on the order of only a few metres.
27b)) that are updated each iteration. Using a larger value than 2 m for z can cause numerical
instability in the model. For neutral conditions, L = 0, H = 0
Stability correction functions. The Monin–Obukhov and cm and ch = 0.
length (L) defines the stability conditions of the atmosphere
in the iterative process. L is the height at which forces of
The use of inverse modelling at extreme conditions
buoyancy (or stability) and mechanical mixing are equal and
during calibration
is calculated as a function of heat and momentum fluxes:
In METRIC, the satellite-based energy balance is internally
r cp u 3 Ts calibrated at two extreme conditions (dry and wet) using
L ¼  air (22)
kgH locally available weather data. The auto-calibration is
performed for each image using alfalfa-based reference ET
where g is gravitational acceleration (=9.807 m s2) and
(ETr) computed from hourly weather data. Accuracy and
units for terms cancel to metre for L. Values of the integrated
dependability of the ETr estimate has been established by
stability corrections for momentum and heat transport (cm
lysimetric and other studies in which we have high confidence
and ch) are computed using formulations by Paulson (1970)
(ASCE-EWRI, 2005). The internal calibration of the sensible
and Webb (1970), depending on the sign of L. When L < 0,
heat computation within SEBAL and METRIC and the use of
the lower atmospheric boundary layer is unstable, and when
the indexed temperature gradient eliminate the need for
L > 0, the boundary layer is stable. For L < 0,
atmospheric correction of surface temperature (Ts) and
    reflectance (albedo) measurements using radiative transfer
1 þ xð200mÞ 1 þ xð200mÞ 2
Ψ m ð200mÞ ¼ 2ln þ ln models (Tasumi et al., 2005b). The internal calibration also
2
 2 reduces impacts of biases in estimation of aerodynamic
 2ARCTAN xð200mÞ þ 0:5p (23) stability correction and surface roughness.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
4020 R. ALLEN ET AL.
Determination of constants in the dT function. In
traditional applications of SEBAL (Bastiaanssen et al.
1998a, 1998b), parameters a and b in Equation (29) are
computed by setting dT = 0 for Ts equal to the surface
temperature of a local water body (or in its absence, a well
vegetated field) and where SEBAL expects H to be zero.
This assumption has been modified in some recent
applications of SEBAL by Bastiaanssen (pers. comm.
2010) by applying an advection correction factor
determined by examining behaviour of reference ET at
nearby weather stations. The dry end of the dT function is
estimated for a selected ‘hot’ pixel in the image where the
soil is assumed to be dry enough that LE = 0:
ðRn  GÞrah hot
dThot ¼ (28)
rair hot Cp
where rah hot is rah computed for the roughness and stability
conditions of the hot pixel and rair hot is rair calculated at the
hot pixel. The values for a and b in Equation (14) are then
estimated from these two pairs of dT and associated Ts.
In METRIC, a similar approach and assumptions are
made for determining dThot for the hot pixel, although a
daily surface soil-water balance such as that of the FAO56
publication (Allen et al., 1998) is run for a bare soil
condition to confirm that ET = 0 or to supply a nonzero value
for ET if there is residual evaporation (Suleiman and Ritchie,
2003) from antecedent precipitation or other wetting event.
Thus, in METRIC,
Hhot ¼ ðRn  GÞhot  LEhot (29)
from Equation (1), where LEhot is the latent residual
evaporation at the hot pixel and Rn and G are values for
the hot pixel.
At the ‘cold’ pixel, we define the sensible heat flux in
METRIC as
Hcold ¼ ðRn  GÞcold  LEcold (30)
where LEcold is the estimated latent heat flux at the cold
pixel. Experience shows that the coldest (and wettest)
agricultural fields in a satellite image that are at full cover
(LAI > 4) have ET rates that are typically about 5% greater
than the rate from the alfalfa reference crop ETr (Tasumi,
2003; Tasumi et al., 2005a). This occurs because, for a large
population of fields, some fields will have a wet soil surface
beneath a full vegetation canopy that will tend to increase the
total ET rate to about 5% above that of the ETr standard
(Wright, 1982). In addition, when viewing a large
population of fields containing full-cover alfalfa, a specific
subpopulation of fields will have somewhat wetter condi-
tions because of recent irrigation and therefore slightly
higher ET and slightly cooler temperature than the ‘mean’
full-cover condition represented by the standardized alfalfa
reference. Also, the ETr definition represents the ‘mean’
evaporative condition for a 0.5 m tall alfalfa. Some of the
alfalfa population (or other crops at full ground cover) will
have ET rates above the mean. Hence, the value for LEcold is
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
based on a representative ‘cold’ pixel selected from the
satellite scene and is assumed to be 1.05  ETr  l, where l
is the latent heat of vaporization (from Equation (35)).
Exceptions to the assumption that ETcold = 1.05 ETr occur
during nongrowing season periods and early in growing
seasons where the amount of vegetation for the greenest and
coolest pixels is less than that of the 0.5-m tall standardized
alfalfa reference. In these cases, a ratio of ETcold/ETr = f(NDVI)
can be developed for the image based on the judgement of the
operator or based on local data. METRIC applications for
agricultural crops in southern Idaho indicate that ETcold/
ETr ~ 1.25 NDVI to 1.30 NDVI during development periods,
where NDVI is calculated without atmospheric correction
(Tasumi et al., 2005a).
The near-surface temperature gradient over the cold pixel,
dTcold, is computed using the inverse of Equation (14):
Hcold rah cold
dTcold ¼ (31)
rair cold Cp
where rah cold is rah computed for the roughness and stability
conditions of the cold pixel and rair cold is rair calculated at
the cold pixel.
The a and b coefficients are determined using the two
pairs of values for dT and Ts, where
dThot  dTcold
b¼ (32)
Ts datum hot  Ts datum cold
and
a ¼ dThot  bTs datum hot (33)
where Ts datum hot and Ts datum cold are the surface temperatures
at the hot and cold pixels adjusted to a common elevation
datum for each image pixel using a digital elevation model
and customized lapse rate.
In applications with MODIS, it is often difficult to find
1000-m thermal pixels containing homogenous vegetation
that is at sufficient ground cover to represent the ‘cold pixel’
condition (where ET ~ 1.05 ETr). Under these conditions, one
can use METRIC applications based on and calibrated using
Landsat to determine ET and ETrF for specific MODIS-scale
pixels and to develop associated ETrF versus NDVI
relationships for a target region or some fraction of the
population of pixels having maximum NDVI that can in turn
be used to determine calibration for the coarse MODIS-based
images (where pixels having ETrF = 1.05 do not exist).
Calibration via reference evapotranspiration
The METRIC model uses the standardized ASCE
Penman–Monteith equation for the alfalfa reference ETr
(ASCE-EWRI, 2005) to calibrate the energy balance
functions. ETr is typically 20 to 30% greater than grass
reference ET (ETo). ETr is used to approximate the ET of
the cold pixel calibration condition because METRIC can
be applied without crop classification so that the specific
crop type at any pixel is generally not known. Because the
crop coefficient, Kc, typically peaks at 1.0 for many crops
when the alfalfa reference basis is used (Wright, 1982;
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC
Jensenetal.,1990),thecoldpixelcanbenearlyanyagricultural
crop having complete ground cover and LAI greater than
approximately 4.0. The freedom from requiring crop classi-
fication constitutes a significant cost savings, as accurate crop
classification from satellite can be relatively costly.
Accuracy and dependability of the standardized ASCE
Penman–Monteith equation for calibration of the energy
balance under the well-watered condition has been well
documented. The equation has exhibited good sensitivity to
hourly changes in weather (Jensen et al., 1990; Allen et al.,
2005; ASCE-EWRI, 2005), where the equation provides a
robust approximation of the ET expected from extensive
surfaces of full vegetation cover. Each satellite image is
auto-calibrated during the METRIC process using ETr
(calculated using hourly or shorter period weather data),
where LEcold = 1.05 ETr  l. The Hcold from Equation (30)
is in turn used in Equation (31) to derive coefficients from
Equations (32) and (33) to derive a general function to
estimate dT for all pixels of the image.
The calibration of the sensible heat process equations, and
in essence the entire energy balance, to ETr corrects the
surface energy balance for lingering systematic computation-
al biases associated with empirical functions used to estimate
some components and uncertainties in other estimates as
summarized by Allen et al. (2005), including
• atmospheric correction
• albedo calculation
• net radiation calculation
• surface temperature from the satellite thermal band
• air temperature gradient function used in sensible heat
flux calculation
• aerodynamic resistance including stability functions
• soil heat flux function
• wind speed field
This list of biases plagues essentially all surface energy
balance computations that utilize satellite imagery as the
primary spatial information resource. Most polar orbiting
satellites orbit about 700 km above the earth’s surface, yet the
transport of vapour and sensible heat from land surfaces is
strongly impacted by aerodynamic processes including wind
speed, turbulence and buoyancy, all of which are essentially
invisible to satellites. In addition, precise quantification of
albedo, net radiation and soil heat flux is uncertain and
potentially biassed. Therefore, even though best efforts are
made to estimate each of these parameters as accurately and
as unbiased as possible, some biases do occur, and calibration
to ETr helps to compensate for this by introducing a bias
correction into the calculation of H. The end result is that
biases inherent to Rn, G and subcomponents of H are
essentially cancelled by the subtraction of a bias-cancelling
estimate for H. The result is an ET map having values ranging
between near zero and near ETr for images having a range of
bare or nearly bare soil and full vegetation cover.
Adjustment to empirical equations: The METRIC model
utilizes a number of empirical equations to estimate values
to support various components of the energy balance. These
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4021
equations include those for leaf area index, aerodynamic
roughness length, soil heat flux and air temperature gradient.
Users may be concerned whether these component estimates
or the METRIC calibration process may break down under
specific circumstances. The empirical equations applied are,
in principle, considered to be relatively robust in their
transferability. The use of ETr to calibrate each application
corrects for much of the individual bias introduced into a
component estimate. For example, Tasumi (2003) found
less than a few % error in METRIC ET when estimates for
zom were systematically halved and doubled prior to
METRIC calibration. The calibration process adjusted the
calibration of the dT function to account for the decreased or
increased bias in roughness, and therefore estimates for H
and ET were little impacted. In addition, the energy balance
process is only slightly sensitive to roughness for areas
having ET within 30% of ETr because the total value for H is
small. The process is only slightly sensitive to roughness at
low values for ET because boundary layer buoyancy
dominates the sensible heat exchange.
Several applications of METRIC have required modifica-
tion of the empirical functions for G. In an application to
Imperial Valley, California, soil heat transfer into desert soils
was reduced by crusts detached from the underlying soil. In
this situation, desert soils had significantly higher surface
temperature than bare agricultural soils because of the reduced
G. Values for G estimated empirically were reduced in
proportion to surface temperature above a threshold value.
In applications in southern Idaho, sparsely vegetated
desert systems, although aerodynamically rough, have
characteristically high surface temperature. The combin-
ation of high zom and high Ts causes overestimation of H
when the same dT versus Ts function developed for
agricultural regions of the satellite image is used. The
overestimation of H has been largely overcome by including
an ‘excess resistance’ term to rah to account for the sheltering
effect of desert canopy. The function for the excess
resistance was empirically developed using eddy covariance
and temperature gradient measurements made over the
sagebrush environment and was expressed as a closed
function of wind speed.
In applications along the Middle Rio Grande of New
Mexico, two separate dT functions were developed and
applied for each image. One dT function was applied to
agricultural areas within the Rio Grande valley, which tends
to be incised below the regional plain, and the other dT
function was applied to areas outside the valley. The two
functions were required because of substantially different
surface temperatures exhibited for the ‘dry pixels’. In some
applications containing desert systems, the slope of the dT
function in Equation (29) is reduced when Ts datum exceeds
the Ts datum hot of the hot pixel. These deviations from routine
application of METRIC equations are examples of
modifications to the empirical method that may be required
to improve accuracy of estimates of ET from natural systems
and illustrate the value of specific knowledge of native
systems, principles of aerodynamic transfer and boundary
layer development, soil physics and energy transfer limi-
tations. Future study and additional sensitivity assessments
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
4022 R. ALLEN ET AL.
of impacts of empirical estimates for various energy balance
components are warranted.
Calculation of evapotranspiration
ET at the instant of the satellite image is calculated for each
pixel by dividing LE from Equation (1) by latent heat of
vaporization:
LE
ETinst ¼ 3600 (34)
lrw
where ETinst is instantaneous ET (mm h1), 3600 converts
from seconds to hours, rw is the density of water (~1000 kg
m3) and l is the latent heat of vaporization (J kg1)
representing the heat absorbed when a kilogramme of water
evaporates and is computed as
l ¼ ½2:501  0:00236ðTs  273:15Þ  106 (35)
The reference ET fraction (ETrF) is calculated as the
ratio of the computed instantaneous ET (ETinst) from each
pixel to the reference ET (ETr) computed from weather
data:
ETinst
ETr F ¼ (36)
ETr
where ETr is the estimated instantaneous rate (interpolated
from hourly data) (mm h1) for the standardized 0.5-m tall
alfalfa reference at the time of the image. Generally, only one
or two weather stations are required to estimate ETr for a
Landsat image that measures 180  180 km, as discussed
later. ETrF is the same as the well-known crop coefficient, Kc,
when used with an alfalfa reference basis and is used to
extrapolate ET from the image time to 24-h or longer periods.
One should generally expect ETrF values to range from 0
to about 1.0 (Wright, 1982; Jensen et al., 1990). At a
completely dry pixel, ET = 0 and therefore ETrF = 0. A pixel
in a well-established field of alfalfa or corn can occasionally
have an ET slightly greater than ETr and therefore ETrF > 1,
perhaps up to 1.1 if it has been recently wetted by irrigation or
precipitation. However, ETr generally represents an upper
bound on ET for large expanses of well-watered vegetation.
Negative values for ETrF can occur in METRIC because of
systematic errors caused by various assumptions made earlier
in the energy balance process and due to random error
components so that error should oscillate about ETrF = 0 for
completely dry pixels. In calculation of ETrF in Equation
(36), each pixel retains a unique value for ETinst that is derived
from a common value for ETr derived from the representative
weather station data.
Figure 3 compares ETrF developed using METRIC with
ETrF derived from NDVI as ETrF = 1.25 NDVI. Similarity
in estimates is apparent, indicating the strong relationship
between relative ET and vegetation amount. What is
different between the two estimates is that the energy
balance was able to detect evaporation from fields having
low vegetation cover, which stemmed from post harvest
irrigation and tillage. In addition, the standard deviation of
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
relative ET between the two approaches averaged about 0.2,
indicating that about 20% of values exceed 20% difference.
Figure 3 also shows the high value of Landsat images and its
relatively high resolution thermal sensor. This permits
retrieval of ET for individual agricultural fields and even
some indication of within-field variation.
24-h evapotranspiration (ET24). Daily values of ET
(ET24) are generally much more useful than the instantaneous
ET that is derived from the satellite image. In the METRIC
process, ET24 is estimated by assuming that the instantaneous
ETrF computed at image time is the same as the average ETrF
over the 24-h average. The consistency of ETrF over a day has
been demonstrated by various studies, including those of
Romero (2004), Colaizzi et al. (2006) and Allen et al.
(2007a).
The assumption of constant ETrF during a day has been
shown to be valid for agricultural crops that have been
developed to maximize photosynthesis and thus stomatal
conductance. The advantage of using ETrF is to account for
the increase in 24-h ET that can occur under advective
conditions. The impacts of advection are represented well by
the Penman–Monteith equation. However, in nonirrigated or
water short situations, ETrF may decrease during afternoon,
especially for some native vegetation where plants endeavour
to conserve soil water through stomatal control (Glenn et al.,
2011). In addition, by definition, when the vegetation under
study is the same as or similar to the vegetation for the
surrounding region and experiences similar water inputs
(natural rainfall only), then (by definition) no advection can
occur. This is because as much sensible heat energy is
generated by the surface under study as is generated by the
region. Therefore, the net advection of energy is nearly zero.
Therefore, under these conditions, the estimation by ETr that
accounts for impacts of advection to a wet surface do not
occur, and the use of ETrF to estimate 24-h ET may not be
valid. Instead, the use of evaporative fraction, EF, that is used
with SEBAL applications may be a better time-transfer
approach for rainfed systems. Various schemes of using EF
for rainfed portions of Landsat images and ETrF for irrigated,
riparian or wetland portions were explored by Kjaersgaard
and Allen (2010). When used, the EF is calculated as
ETinst
EF ¼ (37)
Rn  G
where ETinst and Rn and G have the same units and represent
the same period.
Finally, the ET24 (mm day1) is computed for each
image pixel in SEBAL as
ET24 ¼ ðEF ÞðRn24 Þ (38)
and in METRIC as
ET24 ¼ Crad ðETr F ÞðETr24 Þ (39)
where ETrF (or EF) is assumed equal to the ETrF (or EF)
determined at the satellite overpass time, ETr24 is the
cumulative 24-h ETr for the day of the image and Crad is a
correction term used in sloping terrain to correct for variation
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC 4023

Figure 3. Comparison of the ratio of actual ET to reference ET (ETrF) on 22 July 2006 near Twin Falls, Idaho, using full energy balance (METRIC) (top)
and using a simple ETrF = 1.25 NDVI relationship (bottom)

in 24-h versus instantaneous energy availability. Crad is
calculated for each image and pixel as
RsoðinstÞHorizontal Rsoð24ÞPixel
Crad ¼  (40)
RsoðinstÞPixel Rsoð24ÞHorizontal
where Rso is clear-sky solar radiation (W m1), the ‘(inst)’
subscript denotes conditions at the satellite image time, ‘(24)’
represents the 24-h total, the ‘Pixel’ subscript denotes slope
and aspect conditions at a specific pixel and the ‘Horizontal’
subscript denotes values calculated for a horizontal surface
representing the conditions impacting ETr at the weather
station. For applications to horizontal areas, Crad = 1.0.
The 24-h Rso for horizontal surfaces and for sloping
pixels is calculated as
Z 24
Rso ð24Þ ¼ Rsoi (41)
0 over time to account for both spatial and temporal variation
where Rso_i is instantaneous clear-sky solar radiation at
time i of the day, calculated by an equation that accounts
for effects of slope and aspect. In METRIC, ETr24 is
calculated by summing hourly ETr values over the day of
the image.
There is some question regarding whether the dT
function responds correctly across regions of a satellite
image where wind and thus ETr have different values. In
application of METRIC, a single dT function is generally
developed for an entire image or for a subregion of an
image where Ts exhibits a similar range. Investigations in
Idaho (Trezza, 2002; Tasumi, 2003) have indicated that
where wind speed is higher and thus ET higher in a
subregion relative to the region of dT calibration, that
values for Ts tend to run slightly lower. The lower Ts causes
lower dT estimates that in turn produce higher ET.
Therefore, even though wind speed and ETr for the
subregion deviate from that for the image subregion of
calibration, the ET is more accurately predicted using a
single, general dT function (Equation (14)) established for
the image date. The coefficients in Equation (14) are highly
correlated to wind speed. Therefore, if wind speed over an
image is varied, then Equation (14) must be recalibrated.
After ET and ETrF have been determined using the
energy balance, and the application of the single dT
function, then, when interpolating between satellite
images, a full grid for ETr is used for the extrapolation
in ETr. The ETr grid is generally made on a 3- or 5-km base
using as many quality-controlled weather stations located
within and in the vicinity of the study area as available.
Depending on data availability and the density of the
weather stations, various gridding methods including
kriging, inverse distance, and splining can be used.
Seasonal evapotranspiration (ETseasonal). Monthly and
seasonal evapotranspiration ‘maps’ are often desired for
quantifying total water consumption from agriculture.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
4024 R. ALLEN ET AL.
These maps can be derived from a series of ETrF images
by interpolating ETrF on a pixel by pixel basis between
processed images and multiplying, on a daily basis, by the
ETr for each day. The interpolation of ETrF between
image dates is not unlike the construction of a seasonal Kc
curve (Allen et al., 1998), where interpolation is done
between discrete values for Kc.
The METRIC approach assumes that the ET for the entire
area of interest changes in proportion to change in gridded
ETr. This is a generally valid assumption and is similar to the
assumptions used in the conventional application of Kc  ETr.
This approach is effective in estimating ET for both clear and
cloudy days in between the clear-sky satellite image dates.
Tasumi et al. (2005a) showed that the ETrF was consistent
between clear and cloudy days using lysimeter measurements
at Kimberly, Idaho. Because ETr is used only as an index of
the relative change in weather, specific information at each
pixel is retained through the ETrF.
Cumulative ET for any period, for example, month, season
or year is calculated as
X
n
ETperiod ¼ ½ðETr Fi ÞðETr24 i Þ (42)
i¼m
where ETperiod is the cumulative ET for a period beginning on
day m and ending on day n, ETrFi is the interpolated ETrF for
day i and ETr24i is the 24-h ETr for day i. Units for ETperiod will
be in mm when ETr24 is in mm day1. The interpolation
between values for ETrF is best made using a curvilinear
interpolation function, for example a spline function, to better
fit the typical curvilinearity of crop coefficients during a
growing season (Wright, 1982). Generally, one satellite
image per month is sufficient to construct an accurate ETrF
curve for purposes of estimating seasonal ET (Allen et al.,
2007a). During periods of rapid vegetation change, a more
frequent image interval may be desirable. Examples of
splining ETrF to estimate daily and monthly ET are given by
Allen et al. (2007a) and Singh et al. (2008).
If a specific pixel must be masked out of an image because
of cloud cover, then a subsequent image date must be used
during the interpolation and the estimated ETrF or Kc curve
will have reduced accuracy.
Average ETrF over a period. An average ETrF for the
period can be calculated as
P
n
½ðETr Fi ÞðETr24i Þ
ETr Fperiod ¼ i¼m (43)
P
n
ETr24i
i¼m
Moderately high resolution satellites such as Landsat
provide the opportunity to view evapotranspiration on a field
by field basis, which can be valuable for water rights
management, irrigation scheduling and discrimination of ET
among crop types (Allen et al., 2007b). The downside of
using high resolution imagery is less frequent image
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
acquisition. In the case of Landsat, the return interval is
16 days. As a result, monthly ET estimates are based on only
one or two satellite image snapshots per month. In the case of
clouds, intervals of 48 days between images can occur. This
can be rectified by combining multiple Landsats (five with
seven) or by using data fusion techniques, where a more
frequent but more coarse system such as MODIS is used as a
carrier of information during periods without quality Landsat
images (Gao et al., 2006; Anderson et al., 2010).
Trezza and Allen (2009) developed a type of data fusion
method that used MODIS as a transfer mechanism in between
Landsat images that were more than 32 days apart, and
therefore, interpolation of ETrF was considered to be too
speculative. In that application, they developed ratios of ETrF
from Landsat (30 m) to the underlying NDVI from MODIS
(250 m) on the same or similar days as the Landsat images.
These ratios were then interpolated between Landsat images,
and for every available MODIS date, ETrF was estimated by
multiplying MODIS NDVI by the interpolated ratios. The
result was a time integrated ETrF that followed the evolution
of NDVI as monitored by MODIS but retained much of the
30-m resolution of Landsat. This technique, however, was
unable to account for any evaporation from precipitation
occurring between Landsat image dates and effectively only
preserved the amount of soil evaporation that was captured in
the endpoint Landsat images.
A potential shortfall in basing integrated ET averages on
periodic snapshots from satellites is in sampling a represen-
tative or ‘average’ impact of precipitation on ET. Precipitation
events immediately antecedent to a satellite image may
unduly dominate the ET image, or conversely, if no
precipitation event has occurred for 5 to 10 days prior to a
Landsat image, then effects of evaporation from precipitation
may be absent from the image. Therefore, the image-based
product may not represent evaporation from rainfall averaged
over the monthly period. It is usually important, hydrologic-
ally, that the average, or integrated, effect of evaporation from
precipitation be represented by the ET image so that the
product is more useful in hydrologic and water balance
studies. Methods for accounting for precipitation events
occurring between satellite images are described in a
companion paper by Kjaersgaard et al. (2011) including a
soil-water balance procedure that adjusts the ET derived from
the satellite overpass date for background evaporation from
soil caused by rainfall over monthly or longer integration
periods. The result of the adjustment is an ET image and
consequently final ET map that better represents the average
evaporative conditions over the period. Figure 4 shows a map
of ETrF for the Central Platte Natural Resources District,
Nebraska, where application of the procedure to adjust for
background evaporation assisted in ETrF from adjacent
images (in time) to fill in clouded areas relatively seamlessly.
Figure 5 shows growing season (April–October)
evapotranspiration during 2006 over portions of the
Eastern Snake River plain and surrounding mountains
of SE Idaho as produced by METRIC energy balance and
splining between Landsat image dates using gridded
reference evapotranspiration. Irrigated areas show sea-
sonal ET ranging from 500 to 1200 mm and nonirrigated
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC 4025

Figure 4. ETrF product for 20 August 2007 over the Central Platte Natural Resources District, Nebraska, with clouded areas masked (top) and filled
(bottom) using a procedure that adjusted for background evaporation from antecedent precipitation events

areas ranging from 100 to 400 mm in lower lying areas
and as high as 1000 mm in mountains.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Mapping EvapoTranspiration at high Resolution with
Internalized Calibration (METRIC™) is a satellite-based
image-processing tool for calculating ET as a residual of the
energy balance at the earth’s surface. METRIC has, as its
foundation, principles and techniques used by the pioneering
model Surface Energy Balance Algorithms for Land
(SEBAL), an important energy balance model developed
in the Netherlands and applied worldwide by Bastiaanssen
and his associates. In particular, METRIC uses the SEBAL
technique for estimating the near-surface temperature
gradient, dT, as an indexed function of radiometric surface
temperature, thereby eliminating the need for absolutely
accurate aerodynamic surface temperature and the need for
air temperature measurements for estimating sensible heat
flux at the surface. METRIC utilizes internal calibration of
the satellite-based energy balance at two extreme conditions

Figure 5. Growing season (April–October) evapotranspiration during 2006 over portions of the Eastern Snake River plain and surrounding mountains as
produced by METRIC energy balance and splining between Landsat image dates using gridded reference evapotranspiration

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
4026 R. ALLEN ET AL.
(dry and wet) using locally available weather data. The auto-
calibration is performed for each image using alfalfa-based
reference ET (ETr) computed from hourly weather data. The
internal calibration and the use of the indexed temperature
gradient eliminate the need for atmospheric correction of Ts
and reflectance (albedo) measurements using radiative
transfer models. The internal calibration also reduces
impacts of biases in estimation of aerodynamic stability
correction and surface roughness.
The SEBAL and METRIC models represent a maturing
technology for deriving a satellite-driven surface energy
balance for estimating ET from the earth’s surface and have
the potential to become widely adopted by water resources
communities. METRIC is designed to produce high quality
and accurate maps of ET for focused regions smaller than a
few hundred kilometres in scale and at high resolution.
Thus, use of reference ET for calibration and for
extrapolating from instantaneous to 24-h ET helps to
account for regional advection effects on ET and improves
congruency with the traditional reference ET  Kc approach.
Requirements for applying METRIC are trained experts
having good background in energy balance and radiation
physics and adequate knowledge of vegetation characteristics
as well as high quality hourly (or shorter) weather data. The
requirement for trained experts having good physics
background and high quality weather data is a distinct
disadvantage of METRIC, and in some regard of SEBAL, in
that highly specialized personnel are required to operate the
model with credibility. It is evident that METRIC is highly
reliant on the operator’s ability to select appropriate cold and
hot pixels. Current development work has tested the use of a
statistical procedure to automate the selection of the hot and
cold pixels with relatively good success (Burnett et al., 2008,
Kjaersgaard et al., 2009). However, METRIC is currently not
a complete hands-off model. Continued comparisons with
other remote sensing-based approaches are needed to
understand the advantages/disadvantages of the different
techniques and to gain a better understanding of the
uncertainties in various model components and their impacts
on final ET estimates.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the long-term lysimeter data
collection by Dr James L. Wright, USDA-ARS, Kimberly,
Idaho, that provided the means for comparing ET measure-
ments with ET estimated by METRIC and for confirming the
relative constancy of ETrF during daylight hours. Funding for
the various applications and development came from NASA,
Raytheon, USDA-CSREES, USGS, USDA, Idaho Depart-
ment of Water Resources, Idaho Agricultural Experiment
Station, Idaho Engineering Experiment Station, National
Science Foundation Idaho EPSCoR and University of
Nebraska Experiment Station.
REFERENCES
Agam N, Kustas WP, Anderson MC, Norman J, Colaizzi PD, Howell
TA, Prueger JH, Meyers TP, Wilson TB. 2010. Application of the
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Priestley–Taylor approach in a two-source surface energy balance
model. Journal of Hydrometeorology 11(1): 185–198.
Allen RG. 1996. Assessing integrity of weather data for use in reference
evapotranspiration estimation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, ASCE 122(2): 97–106.
Allen RG. 2002. Evapotranspiration for southwest Florida from satellite-based
energy balance. Consulting report to Tampa Bay Water, Tampa Bay, FL; 45.
Allen RG. 2010. Aerodynamic Procedure for Estimating Evaporation
from Open Water and Snow in METRIC. Memo, Kimberly R&E
Center: University of Idaho; 10.
Allen, RG, Tasumi, M. 2005. Evaporation from American Falls reservoir
in Idaho via a combination of Bowen ratio and eddy covariance.
Proceedings of the EWRI World Water and Environmental Resources
Congress 2005: Impacts of Global Climate Change. EWRI, 1801
Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA; 17.
Allen RG. Wright JL. 1997. translating wind measurements from weather
stations to agricultural crops. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE
2(1): 26–35.
Allen RG, Trezza R. 2011. Sensitivity of aerodynamic characteristics in
mountainous terrain when estimating evapotranspiration from satellite-
based energy balance. Interoffice memo and paper in preparation.
University of Idaho; 12.
Allen RG, Pruitt WO, Businger JA, Fritschen LJ, Jensen ME, Quinn FH.
1996. Evaporation and transpiration, Chap. 4, 125–252. In ASCE
Handbook of Hydrology, Wootton et al. (ed.). ASCE: Reston, VA.
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D. Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration:
guidelines for computing crop water requirements. United Nations FAO,
Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. 1998. Rome, Italy; 300. http://www.fao.
org/docrep/X0490E/X0490E00.htm (accessed 5 February 2007)
Allen RG, Hartogensis O, de Bruin H. 2000. Long-wave radiation over
alfalfa during the RAPID field campaign in southern Idaho. unpublished
Univ. Idaho Research Report, Kimberly, ID; 20.
Allen RG, Tasumi M, Trezza R. 2005. Benefits from tying satellite-based
energy balance to ground-based reference evapotranspiration. In Earth
Observation For Vegetation Monitoring and Water Management. AIP
Conference Proceedings Vol. 852. ISBN: 0-7354-0346-5, AIP, College
Park, MD; 127–137.
Allen RG, Tasumi M, Trezza R. 2007a. Satellite-based energy balance for
mapping evapotranspiration with internalized calibration (METRIC) – model.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE 133: 380–394.
Allen RG, Tasumi M, Morse A, Trezza R, Wright JL, Bastiaanssen W, Kramber
W, Lorite I, Robison C. 2007b. Satellite-based energy balance for mapping
evapotranspiration with internalized calibration (METRIC) – applications.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE 133: 395–406.
Anderson MC, Norman JM, Mecikalski JR, Torn RD, Kustas WP, Basara JB.
2004. A multi-scale remote sensing model for disaggregating regional fluxes
to micrometeorological scales. Journal of Hydrometeorology 5: 343–363.
Anderson MC, Norman JM, Mecikalski JR, Otkin JA, Kustas WP. 2007.
A climatological study of evapotranspiration and moisture stress across
the continental United States based on thermal remote sensing: 1 Model
formulation. Journal of Geophysical Research 112: D10117–D10134.
Anderson MC, Kustas WP, Dulaney W, Feng G, Summer D. 2010.
Integration of multi-scale thermal satellite imagery for evaluation of
daily evapotranspiration at the sub-field scale. Remote Sensing and
Hydrology Symposium 2010. Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA; 62.
ASCE-EWRI. 2005. The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration
equation. ASCE-EWRI Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration
Task Comm. Report, ASCE Bookstore, ISBN: 078440805, Stock Number
40805; 216.
Bastiaanssen WGM. 1995. Regionalization of surface flux densities and
moisture indicators in composite terrain: a remote sensing approach under
clear skies in Mediterranean climates. PhD Diss., CIP Data Koninklijke
Bibliotheek, Den Haag, the Netherlands; 273.
Bastiaanssen WGM. 1998. Remote sensing in water resources management: the
state of the art. International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri
Lanka.
Bastiaanssen WGM. 2000. SEBAL-based sensible and latent heat fluxes
in the irrigated Gediz Basin Turkey. Journal of Hydrology 229: 87–100.
Bastiaanssen WGM, Menenti M, Feddes RA, Holtslag AAM. 1998a. A
remote sensing surface energy balance algorithm for land (SEBAL): 1.
Formulation. Journal of Hydrology 212–213: 198–212.
Bastiaanssen WGM, Pelgrum H, Wang J, Ma Y, Moreno J, Roerink GJ,
van der Wal T. 1998b. The surface energy balance algorithm for land
(SEBAL): Part 2. Validation. Journal of Hydrology 212–213: 213–229.
Bastiaanssen WGM, Noordman EJM, Pelgrum H, Davids G, Thoreson
BP, Allen RG. 2005. SEBAL model with remotely sensed data to
improve water-resources management under actual field conditions
ASCE. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 131(1): 85–93.
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)
 SATELLITE-BASED ET ESTIMATION WITH SEBAL AND METRIC
Berk A, Anderson GP, Bernstein LS, Acharya PK, Dothe H, Matthew MW,
Adler-Golden SM, Chetwynd JH, Jr., Richtsmeier SC, Pukall B, Allred CL,
Jeong LS, Hoke ML. 1999. MODTRAN4 radiative transfer modeling for
atmospheric correction. Proceedings of SPIE Optical Spectroscopic
Techniques and Instrumentation for Atmospheric and Space Research III,
3756, 1999. Bellingham WA 98227–0010 USA
Betts AK, Chen F, Mitchell KE, Janjic ZI. 1997. Assessment of the land
surface and boundary layer models in two operational versions of the NCEP
Eta model using FIFE data. Monthly Weather Review 125: 2896–2916.
Burnett B, Allen RG, Robison CW, Tasumi T, Lorite I. 2008. Estimating
the soil surface evaporation and transpiration components from satellite
images in the absence of a thermal band. Paper presented at the 2008
World and Environmental Resources Congress of ASCE and EWRI,
Honolulu, HI, May 12-16, 2008. Published on CD-ROM, ASCE. 18.
Brutsaert W. 1982. Evaporation into the atmosphere. D. Reidel Publishing
Co: Dordrecht, Holland; 300.
Choudhury BJ, Idso SB, Reginato RJ. 1987. Analysis of an empirical
model for soil heat flux under a growing wheat crop for estimating
evaporation by an infrared-temperature-based energy balance equation.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 39: 283–297.
Colaizzi PD, Evett SR, Howell TA, Tolk JA. 2006. Comparison of five
models to scale daily evapotranspiration from one-time-of-day measure-
ments. Transactions of the ASABE 49(5): 1409–1417.
Duffie JA, Beckman WA. 1991. Solar engineering of thermal process,
2nd edn. John Wiley and sons: NY.
Gao F, Masek J, Schwaller M, Hall F. 2006. On the blending of the
Landsat and MODIS surface reflectance: predicting daily landsat
surface reflectance. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing 44: 2207–2218.
Garrison JD, Adler GP. 1990. Estimation of precipitable water over the
United States for application to the division of solar radiation into its
direct and diffuse components. Solar Energy 44(4): 225–241.
Glenn E, Neale C, Hunsaker D. 2011. Vegetation-index-based crop
coefficients to estimate evapotranspiration by remote sensing in agricul-
tural and natural ecosystems. Hydrological Processes 25(26): 4050–4062.
DOI: 10.1002/hyp8392.
Granger RJ. 1989. Evaporation from natural nonsaturated surfaces.
Journal of Hydrology 111: 21–29.
Granger RJ. 2000. Satellite-derived estimates of evapotranspiration in the
Gediz Basin. Journal of Hydrology 229(1–2): 70–76.
Hulley G, Hook SJ. 2009. The North American ASTER Land Surface
Emissivity Database (NAALSED) Version 2.0. Remote Sensing of
Environment 113(9): 1967–1975.
Jensen ME, Burman RD, Allen RG (eds.). 1990. Evapotranspiration and
irrigation water requirements. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice No. 70. ISBN: 0-87262-763-2, 332 p. ASCE, Reston, VA.
Kjaersgaard J, Allen RG. 2010. Remote sensing technology to produce
consumptive water use maps for the Nebraska Panhandle. Final
completion report submitted to the University of Nebraska; 88.
Kjaersgaard J, Allen RG, Garcia M, Kramber W, Trezza R. 2009. Automatic
selection of anchor pixels for Landsat-based evapotranspiration estimation.
ASCE World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2009. Kansas
City, KS. Proceedings (CD); 11.
Kjaersgaard J, Allen RG, Irmak A. 2011. Improved methods for
estimating monthly and growing season ET using METRIC applied
to moderate resolution satellite imagery. Hydrological Processes
25(26): 4028–4036. DOI: 10.1002/hyp8394.
Kustas WP, Zhang Z, Schmugge TJ. 1998. Combining optical and
microwave remote sensing for mapping energy fluxes in a semiarid
watershed. Remote Sensing of Environment 64: 116–131.
Liang S. 2000. Narrowband to broadband conversions of land surface
albedo. I: Algorithms. Remote Sensing Environ. 76: 213–238.
Markham BL, Barker JL. 1986. Landsat MSS and TM post-calibration
dynamic ranges, exoatmospheric reflectances and at-satellite temperatures.
EOSAT Landsat Technical Notes 1:3–8. Earth Observation Satellite
Company, Lanham, Maryland.
Miller TW, Hendrickx JMH, Borchers B. 2004. Radar detection of buried
landmines in field soils. Vadose Zone J 3: 1116–1127.
MODIS UCSB Emissivity Library. 2004. University of California Santa
Barbara. http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/html/em.html. Last
visited, 5 February 2007.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View publication stats
4027
Oke TR. 1987. Boundary Layer Climates, 2nd edn. Methuen: London;
435, ISBN: 0-415-04319-0.
Overgaard J, Rosbjerg D, Butts MB. 2006. Land-surface modeling in
hydrological perspective – a review. Biogeosciences 3: 229–241.
Paulson CA. 1970. The mathematical representation of wind speed and
temperature profiles in the unstable atmospheric surface layer. Applied
Meteorology 9: 857–861.
Perrier A. 1982. Land surface processes: vegetation. In land surface
processes in atmospheric general circulation models, Eagelson P (ed.).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 395–448.
Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ. 1972. On the assessment of surface heat flux
and evaporation using large scale parameters. Mon. Weath. Rev. 100:
81–92.
Raupach MR. 1994. Simplified expressions for vegetation roughness length
and zero plane displacement height as functions of canopy height and area
index (Research note). Boundary-Layer Meteorology 71: 211–216.
Romero MG. 2004. Daily evapotranspiration estimation by means of
evaporative fraction and reference ET fraction. PhD Diss., Utah State
Univ., Logan, Utah.
Santos C, Lorite IJ, Tasumi M, Allen RG. 2011. ET estimation for olive
orchards using satellite-based energy balance. Irrigation Science Accepted.
Singh RK, Irmak A, Irmak S, Martin DL. 2008. Application of SEBAL
model for mapping evapotranspiration and estimating surface energy
fluxes in south-central Nebraska. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering 134(3): 273–285.
Singh RK, Irmak A, Walter-Shea, EA, Verma SB. 2009. Performance
evaluation of soil heat flux models in Great Plains. World Environmental
and Water Resources Congress 2009: Kansas City, MO; 10.
Stull RB. 1988. An introduction to boundary layer meteorology, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London. 666. ISBN 90 277
2768 6; 90 277 2769 4.
Suleiman AA. Ritchie JT. 2003. Modeling soil water redistribution during
second-stage evaporation. SSSAJ 67: 377–386.
Tasumi M. 2003. Progress in operational estimation of regional
evapotranspiration using satellite imagery. PhD Dissertation, University
of Idaho, Moscow, ID; 357.
Tasumi M. 2005. A review of evaporation research on Japanese lakes.
Proceedings of the ASCE/EWRI World Water and Environmental
Resources Congress, May 15–19, 2005. 10 pages. ASCE, Reston, VA.
Tasumi M, Allen RG, Trezza R, Wright JL. 2005a. Satellite-based energy
balance to assess within-population variance of crop coefficient curves.
ASCE Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 131(1): 94–109.
Tasumi M, Trezza R, Allen RG, Wright JL. 2005b. Operational aspects of
satellite-based energy balance models for irrigated crops in the semi-
arid U.S. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 19: 355–376.
Tasumi M, Allen RG, Trezza R. 2006. Estimation of at-surface reflectance
and albedo from satellite for routine, operational calculation of land
surface energy balance. ASCE Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 22:
197–208.
Tasumi M, Allen RG, Trezza R. 2008. At-surface albedo from Landsat
and MODIS satellites for use in energy balance studies of evapotrans-
piration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 13: 51–63.
Trezza R. 2002. Evapotranspiration using a satellite-based surface energy
balance with standardized ground control. PhD Diss., Utah State Univ.,
Logan, Utah.
Trezza R, Allen RG. 2009. Estimation of Monthly and Annual ET for
Morocco areas. Report to Riverside Technology, Inc., Ft. Collins, CO. 9.
Van Dam RL, Borchers B, Hendrickx JMH. 2005. Strength of landmine
signatures under different soil conditions: implications for sensor
fusion. International Journal of Systems Science 36: 573–588. DOI:
510.1080/00207720500147800
Webb EK. 1970. Profile relationships: the log-linear range, and extension
to strong stability. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological
Society 96: 67–90.
WigmostaMS,VailL,LettenmaierDP.1994.Adistributedhydrology-vegetation
model for complex terrain. Water Resources Research 30: 1665–1679.
Wright JL. 1982. New evapotranspiration crop coefficients. Journal of the
Irrigation and Drainage Division (ASCE) 108: 57–74.
Wukelic GE, Gibbons DE, Martucci LM, Foote HP. 1989. Radiometric
calibration of Landsat thematic mapper thermal band. Remote Sensing
of Environment 28: 339–347.
Hydrol. Process. 25, 4011–4027 (2011)