Alues) and larger values for the uncorrected modelled values (bigger than
Alues) and greater values for the uncorrected modelled values (bigger than 0.five).Figure 7. Average day-to-day evapotranspiration for the primary experimental location computed in the eddy Figure 7. Typical each day evapotranspiration for the primary experimental region computed in the covariance measurements (Flux Tower), the the SEBAL, TSEB FEST-EWB models (each pixel-wise eddy covariance measurements (Flux Tower), SEBAL, TSEB and and FEST-EWB models (each and corrected by station footprint). pixel-wise and corrected by station footprint).3.2. Upscaled Outputs (UO) three.two. Upscaled Outputs (UO) The aggregated maps employed within the scale evaluation are shown in Figure eight. In the The aggregated maps employed inside the scale evaluation are shown in Figure 8. Within the example 11th June date (11:00 neighborhood time): airborne-sensed Land Surface Temperature (LST), example 11th June date (11:00 nearby time): airborne-sensed Land Surface Temperature Latent Heat (L), Sensible Heat (H), Soil Moisture (SM) and Representative Equilibrium (LST), Latent Heat (L), Sensible Heat (H), Soil Moisture (SM) and Representative EquilibTemperature (RET) are shown. The outcomes of your Upscaled Outputs method are displayed rium Temperature (RET) are shown. appears that on the surface heterogeneity functions (e.g., around the left-hand side in the image. It The outcomes some Upscaled Outputs method are displayed paths) are clearly preserved inside the initially step (ten.2that and nonetheless distinguishable inside the bare-soil around the left-hand side in the image. It seems m) some surface heterogeneity options (e.g., m), wherepaths) areratio is 18:1. In the the very first step (10.2 m) and nevertheless dissecond (30.six bare-soil the scale clearly preserved in third step (244.8 m) all heterogeneity tinguishable inside the seconddegradation process thatratio is 18:1. In the third step (244.8 is lost. The data (30.six m), exactly where the scale follows the aggregation is also visible m) all heterogeneity is lost. The details degradation approach recommend slightly different when comparing the LST and RET evolution. While the colors that follows the aggregation is the obliteration of the field-characterizing features is certainly equivalent.the colors values, also visible when comparing the LST and RET evolution. Despite the fact that suggest slightly different values, the obliteration from the field-characterizing capabilities is certainly related.Remote Sens. 2021, 13,attributes (e.g., bare-soil paths) are clearly preserved inside the initially step (10.2 m) and still distinguishable inside the second (30.six m), exactly where the scale ratio is 18:1. In the third step (244.eight m) all heterogeneity is lost. The data degradation method that follows the aggregation can also be visible when comparing the LST and RET evolution. Although the colors 14 of 26 recommend slightly distinct values, the obliteration with the field-characterizing capabilities is surely equivalent.mote Sens. 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW15 ofData Figure 8. Overview of Land Surface Temperature (LST) and 4 FEST-EWB outputs across the Variance across of Land Surface Temperature Figure 8. Overview Scales FEST-EWB outputs across theselected scales chosen scales plus the two aggregation approaches: Latent Heat Sensible Heat Heat (H), In Figure 9,along with the two aggregationthe frequency PHA-543613 Formula distribution for the same Soil Pinacidil site Moisthe evolution of approaches: Latent Heat (L), (L), Sensible (H), Soil Moisturedisplay information ture (SM) Representative Equilibrium Temperature (RET). (RET). (SM) and and Representative Equilibrium Tem.
