Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of selected gridded potential evapotranspiration datasets with ground-based observations over the Ogun-Osun River Basin, Nigeria

  • Comment
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The impact of climate change on the hydrological cycle has spurred extensive research, particularly regarding potential evapotranspiration (PET), a crucial variable linking water, energy, carbon cycles, and ecosystem services. PET estimation usually relies on in situ weather station data, but data scarcity in regions like Nigeria’s Ogun-Osun Basin poses challenges. With few in situ ET monitoring stations, researchers have turned to alternative PET sources, such as satellite and reanalysis products. In this study, we evaluated four PET products in the Ogun-Osun Basin: Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM), hourly potential evapotranspiration (hPET), amine early warning systems network (NET) Land Data Assimilation System (FLDAS), and Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS). We assessed monthly and annual timescales using statistical indicators such as the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC/r), mean absolute error (M.A.E.), root mean square error (RMSE), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), and percent bias (PBIAS). The results showed that hPET outperformed other PET datasets at the monthly scale, with the highest correlation, lowest errors, and minimal bias values (P.C.C. = 0.80, RMSE = 25.55, PBIAS = 13.62%). GLDAS dataset showed closer performance to the hPET dataset (P.C.C. = 0.61, RMSE = 94.76, PBIAS = 71.1%) and GLEAM (P.C.C. = 0.12, RMSE = 64.67, PBIAS = 73.52%). Moreover, the FLDAS dataset performed least compared to other assessed PET datasets. hPET’s overall better performance was further certified at the annual scale, again outperforming the other products across all performance indicators (PCC = 0.34, M.A.E. = 258.10, RMSE = 263.05). The performance of the other products was quite poor, but the GLEAM product came closest to hPET compared to the other assessed products (P.C.C. =  − 0.20, M.A.E. – 711.57, RMSE = 716.97). Overall, the hPET dominated all statistical indicators at both timescales, making it the best PET product among the ones evaluated by this study. The findings indicate that hPET is a reliable alternative source of PET data, which can greatly support future hydrological research and modelling in the Ogun-Osun Basin.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  • Abeysiriwardana HD, Muttil N, Rathnayake U (2022) A comparative study of potential evapotranspiration estimation by three methods with F.A.O. Penman-Monteith method across Sri Lanka. Hydrology 9(11):206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albarakat R, Le MH, Lakshmi V (2022) Assessment of drought conditions over Iraqi transboundary rivers using FLDAS and satellite datasets. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 41:101075

    Google Scholar 

  • Alijanian M, Rakhshandehroo GR, Mishra AK, Dehghani M (2017) Evaluation of satellite rainfall climatology using CMORPH, PERSIANN-CDR, PERSIANN, TRMM, MSWEP over Iran. Int J Climatol 37(14):4896–4914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen RG (1998) Crop evapotranspiration-guideline for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drain 56:300

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (2006) Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements (F.A.O. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

  • Al-Sudani HIZ (2019) Derivation mathematical equations for future calculation of potential evapotranspiration in Iraq, a review of application of Thornthwaite evapotranspiration. Iraqi J Sci 60(5):1037–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bautista F, Bautista D, Delgado-Carranza C (2009) Calibration of the equations of Hargreaves and Thornthwaite to estimate the potential evapotranspiration in semi-arid and subhumid tropical climates for regional applications. Atmósfera 22(4):331–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaney HF, Criddle WD (1950) Determining water needs from climatological data. USDA Soil Conservation Service. S.O.S.–T.P., U.S.A., 3, 8–9

  • Cao G, Han D, Song X (2014) Evaluating actual evapotranspiration and impacts of groundwater storage change in the North China Plain. Hydrol Process 28(4):1797–1808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona AM, Renner M, Kleidon A, Poveda G (2021) Uncertainty of runoff sensitivity to climate change in the Amazon River basin. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1504(1):76–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Wang D, Chopra M (2013) Constructing comprehensive datasets for understanding human and climate change impacts on hydrologic cycle. Irrig Drain Syst Eng 2(106):2

    Google Scholar 

  • CivilDigital (2013) Measurement of evapotranspiration by lysimeter. Retrieved from https://civildigital.com/measurement-of-evapotranspiration-by-lysimeter/

  • Dembélé M, Zwart SJ (2016) Evaluation and comparison of satellite-based rainfall products in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Int J Remote Sens 37(17):3995–4014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey P, Mishra A (2017) Separating the impacts of climate change and human activities on streamflow: a review of methodologies and critical assumptions. J Hydrol 548:278–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooge JCI (1982) Parameterisation of hydrologic processes. In Land Surface Processes in Atmospheric General Circulation Models. P.S. Eagleson, Ed.: 243–288. Cambridge University Press.

  • ESRI (2019) ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute

  • Fisher JB, Whelan ME, Williams M (2018) Evaluating the evapotranspiration data product from the ECOSTRESS sensor against flux tower measurements. Agric for Meteorol 266:51–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh EH, Ng JL, Huang YF, Yong SLS (2021) Performance of potential evapotranspiration models in Peninsular Malaysia. J Water Clim Chang 12(7):3170–3186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafeez M, Khan AA (2018) Assessment of Hargreaves and Blaney-Criddle methods to estimate reference evapotranspiration under coastal conditions. Am J Sci Eng Technol 3:65–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA (1985) Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Appl Eng Agric 1(2):96–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifabiyi IP (2005) Construction versus yield of deep wells in the regolith aquifer of Osun River Basin, Nigeria. Water Resour J 16:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Isikwue CB, Audu OM, Isikwue OM (2014) Evaluation of evapotranspiration using F.A.O. Penman-Monteith method in Kano Nigeria. Int J Sci Technol 3(11):698–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam S, Alam AR (2021) Performance evaluation of F.A.O. Penman-Monteith and best alternative models for estimating reference evapotranspiration in Bangladesh. Heliyon 7(7):e07487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasechko S, Sharp ZD, Gibson JJ, Birks SJ, Yi Y, Fawcett PJ (2017) Terrestrial water fluxes dominated by transpiration. Nature 496(7445):347–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston DG, Todd MC, Taylor RG, Thompson JR, Arnell NW (2009) Uncertainty in the estimation of potential evapotranspiration under climate change. Geophys Res Lett 36(20)

  • Lang D, Zheng J, Shi J, Liao F, Ma X, Wang W, Zhang M (2017) A comparative study of potential evapotranspiration estimation by eight methods with F.A.O. Penman-Monteith method in southwestern China. Water 9(10):734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Liang S, Zhang X, Yu Y (2013) Evaluation of the reanalysis products from GSWP-2 for estimating global soil moisture and evapotranspiration. J Hydrometeorol 14(3):939–957

    Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Kang S, Zhang L, Zhang J, Du T, Tong L, Ding R (2016) Evaluation of six potential evapotranspiration models for estimating crop potential and actual evapotranspiration in arid regions. J Hydrol 543:450–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Zhou Z, Yan Z, Gong J, Jia Y, Xu CY, Wang H (2019) A new approach to separating the impacts of climate change and multiple human activities on water cycle processes based on a distributed hydrological model. J Hydrol 578:124096

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lu J, Sun G, McNulty SG, Amatya DM (2005) A comparison of six potential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the southeastern United States 1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 41(3):621–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens B, Miralles DG, Lievens H, Van Der Schalie R, De Jeu RA, Fernández-Prieto D, Verhoest NE (2017) GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geosci Model Dev 10(5):1903–1925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney MS, Rosenberg NJ (1993) Sensitivity of some potential evapotranspiration estimation methods to climate change. Agric For Meteorol 64(1–2):81–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft Corporation (2018) Microsoft Excel. Retrieved from https://office.microsoft.com/excel

  • Mohammadi A, Costelloe JF, Ryu D (2015) Evaluation of remotely sensed evapotranspiration products in a large scale Australian arid region: Cooper Creek, Queensland. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Modelling & Simulation, Gold Coast, Australia (Vol. 29)

  • National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (n.d.). Potential evapotranspiration. Retrieved from https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/potential-evapotranspiration#:~:text=PE%20is%20the%20demand%20or,of%20water%20that%20is%20available

  • Nkiaka E, Bryant RG, Ntajal J, Biao EI (2022) How useful are gridded water resources reanalysis and evapotranspiration products for assessing water security in ungauged basins? 2. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2022:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Oke MO, Martins O, Idowu O, Aiyelokun O (2013) Comparative analysis of empirical formulae used in groundwater recharge in Ogun-Oshun River Basins. J Sci Res Rep 2(2):692–710

    Google Scholar 

  • OriginPro (2022) OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA

  • Penman HL (1948) Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci 193(1032):120–145

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez-Builes VH, Harmsen EW (2011) Water vapor flux in agroecosystems methods and models review. In Evapotranspiration. IntechOpen

  • Rijtema PE (1965) An analysis of actual evapotranspiration (Doctoral dissertation, Pudoc)

  • Shahidian S, Serralheiro R, Serrano J, Teixeira J, Haie N, Santos F (2012) Hargreaves and other reduced-set methods for calculating evapotranspiration. IntechOpen, London, pp 59–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield J, Goteti G, Wood EF (2006) Development of a 50-year high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface modeling. J Clim 19(13):3088–3111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield J, Wood EF, Pan M, Beck H, Coccia G, Serrat-Capdevila A, Verbist K (2018) Satellite remote sensing for water resources management: potential for supporting sustainable development in data-poor regions. Water Resour Res 54(12):9724–9758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer MB, Asfaw DT, Rosolem R, Cuthbert MO, Miralles DG, MacLeod D, Michaelides K (2021) Hourly potential evapotranspiration at 0.1 resolution for the global land surface from 1981-present. Sci Data 8(1):224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sriwongsitanon N, Suwawong T, Thianpopirug S, Williams J, Jia L, Bastiaanssen W (2020) Validation of seven global remotely sensed ET products across Thailand using water balance measurements and land use classifications. J Hydrol Reg Stud 30:100709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornthwaite CW (1948) An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr Rev 38(1):55–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR (1955) The water budget and its use in irrigation

  • Tigkas D, Vangelis H, Tsakiris G (2015) DrinC: a software for drought analysis based on drought indices. Earth Sci Inf 8:697–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallejo-Bernal SM, Carmona AM, Poveda G (n.d.) Evaluating diverse potential evapotranspiration methodologies and databases for the Amazon River Basin

  • Van Rossum G, Drake FL (1995) Python reference manual (Vol. 111, pp. 1–52). Amsterdam: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica

  • Weerasinghe I, Bastiaanssen W, Mul M, Jia L, Van Griensven A (2020) Can we trust remote sensing evapotranspiration products over Africa? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 24(3):1565–1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu CY, Singh VP (1998) Dependence of evaporation on meteorological variables at different timescales and intercomparison of estimation methods. Hydrol Process 12(3):429–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Yong B, Ren L, Zhang Y, Long D (2017) Multi-scale validation of GLEAM evapotranspiration products over China via ChinaFLUX ET measurements. Int J Remote Sens 38(20):5688–5709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang D, Sun F, Liu Z, Cong Z, Lei Z (2006) Interpreting the complementary relationship in non‐humid environments based on the Budyko and Penman hypotheses. Geophys Res Lett 33(18)

  • Yin Y, Wu S, Chen G, Dai E (2010) Attribution analyses of potential evapotranspiration changes in China since the 1960s. Theoret Appl Climatol 101(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng Z, Piao S, Lin X, Yin G, Peng S, Ciais P, Myneni RB (2012) Global evapotranspiration over the past three decades: estimation based on the water balance equation combined with empirical models. Environ Res Lett 7(1):014026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Dawes WR, Walker GR (2001) Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour Res 37(3):701–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Huo Z, Yang W, Liu T, Li J (2016) Assessment of the Hargreaves-Samani method for estimating reference evapotranspiration in the arid region of China. J Hydrol 534:323–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Huang J, Bao A, Zhang F, Yang Y, Yu T (2018) Spatiotemporal variability and driving factors of potential evapotranspiration in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau during 1983–2013. J Geophys Res Atmos 123(2):1097–1112

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the Department of Civil and Engineering of the Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA) staff members for their support in retrieving hydrometeorological data from various agencies in Nigeria. The authors also appreciate the management of the Ogun-Osun River Basin Development Authority (O-ORBDA) for providing most of the data used for our research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704, Akure, Nigeria

    Opeyemi Olorunleke Faseyiku, Obinna Anthony Obiora-Okeke, Ayodeji Stanley Olowoselu, Oluwatosin Raphael Olafusi & James Rotimi Adewumi

  2. School of Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, The University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC), Prince George, British Columbia, Canada

    Ayodeji Stanley Olowoselu

  3. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies (NRES), Faculty of Environment, The University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC), Prince George, British Columbia, Canada

    Ayodeji Stanley Olowoselu

Authors
  1. Opeyemi Olorunleke Faseyiku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Obinna Anthony Obiora-Okeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayodeji Stanley Olowoselu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oluwatosin Raphael Olafusi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James Rotimi Adewumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayodeji Stanley Olowoselu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Broder J. Merkel

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faseyiku, O.O., Obiora-Okeke, O.A., Olowoselu, A.S. et al. Validation of selected gridded potential evapotranspiration datasets with ground-based observations over the Ogun-Osun River Basin, Nigeria. Arab J Geosci 17, 153 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-024-11962-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-024-11962-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation