@article{fdi:010071064,
  title = {{P}erformance of the two-source energy budget ({TSEB}) model for the monitoring of evapotranspiration over irrigated annual crops in {N}orth {A}frica},
  author = {{D}iarra, {A}. and {J}arlan, {L}ionel and {E}r-{R}aki, {S}. and {L}e {P}age, {M}. and {A}ouade, {G}. and {T}avernier, {A}. and {B}oulet, {G}illes and {E}zzahar, {J}. and {M}erlin, {O}livier and {K}habba, {S}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}he main objective of this study was to evaluate the performance and the domain of validity of the two source energy balance model ({TSEB}) for the monitoring of actual evapotranspiration ({ET}a) as a first step towards its use for irrigation planning. {S}econdary objectives were to analyze the ability of {TSEB} model to detect water stress and to evaluate evapotranspiration partition between evaporation ({E}) and transpiration ({T}) over irrigated annual crops. {W}ithin this context, {TSEB} was compared to the calibrated {FAO}-56 dual approach, taken as a reference tool for the monitoring of crop water consumption. {TSEB} computes {ET},, as the residual of a double component energy balance driven by the radiative surface temperature ({T}-s) used as a proxy of crop hydric conditions; the {FAO}-56 dual crop coefficient approach uses the {N}ormalized {D}ifference {V}egetation {I}ndex ({NDVI}) as a proxy of {B}asal {C}rop {C}oefficient ({K}-cb) and assesses the hydric status directly by solving a two layer soil water budget. {B}oth approaches were evaluated over four plots of wheat and sugar beet located in the {H}aouz plain ({M}arrakech, {M}orocco) that were instrumented with eddy covariance systems during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons. {S}eries of {ASTER} images were acquired during the first agricultural season. {B}oth models offered fair performances compared to {ET} observations with {R}oot {M}ean {S}quare {E}rror ({RMSE}) lower than 1 mm day-1 apart from the {FAO}-56 dual approach on the sugar beet plot because of uncertain irrigation inputs. {T}his highlights a major weakness of this model when water inputs are uncertain; a very likely case at the plot scale. {B}y contrast, the {TSEB} model offered smoother performances in all cases. {T}he potentialities of both approaches to predict a water stress index based on the departure from potential evapotranspiration ({ET}a) was evaluated: although the {FAO}-56 dual was better suited to detect high water stresses, the {TSEB} model was able to detect moderate stresses without a need to prescribe water inputs. {F}inally, the partition of {ET}a between soil evaporation and plant transpiration was estimated indirectly by confrontation between simulated soil evaporation and surface (0-5 cm) soil moisture acquired spatially with {T}heta {P}robe sensors and taken as a proxy of soil evaporation. {TSEB} evaporation was well correlated to surface soil moisture (r = 0.82) for low {L}eaf {A}rea {I}ndex ({LAI}) values (<1.5 m(2) m(-2)). {I}n addition, {TSEB} predicted partition compared well to snapshot measurements based on the stable isotope method, {T}his in-depth comparison of two simple tools to monitor {ET}, leads us to the conclusion that the {TSEB} model can reasonably be used to map {ET}a on large scale and possibly for the decision-making process of irrigation scheduling.},
  keywords = {{E}vapotranspiration ; {TSEB} ; {FAO}-56 ; {S}urface temperature ; {W}ater stress ; {NDVI} ; {MAROC}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{A}gricultural {W}ater {M}anagement},
  volume = {193},
  numero = {},
  pages = {71--88},
  ISSN = {0378-3774},
  year = {2017},
  DOI = {10.1016/j.agwat.2017.08.007},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010071064},
}