Evaluation and bias correction of CRU TS4.05 potential evapotranspiration across vast environments with limited data
Nadir Ahmed Elagib, Marwan M.A. Ali, Karl Schneider
Abstract
Long-term and reliable gridded estimates of potential evapotranspiration (PET) are often dearth. Being the longest available dataset with no validation, this work makes an effort to answer two questions: First, how well does the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Time-Series (TS) Version 4.05 PET (CRU-PET) dataset capture FAO Penman-Monteith grass reference evapotranspiration (ETo) across a range of environments and, second, can a simple adjustment approach be devised to curb the error, if any? The CRU-PET dataset is evaluated against ETo in two data-scarce countries, namely Sudan and South Sudan. Monthly station data measured at 12 stations spread over hyper-arid, arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid zones are used. It is shown generally that CRU-PET tends to perform better in dry than wet conditions, and in arid than in humid locations. In this regard, CRU-PET has a tendency to overestimate (underestimate) the stations' values in the arid (humid) zone, with best performance characteristics achieved north of latitude 15° N. Rainfall plays a key role in determining the bias and has a nonlinear effect. This bias is, however, unclear in rainless months when both augmented overestimates and underestimates were observed. Incorporating geographical coordinates (latitude, longitude and altitude) as co-variables with monthly rainfall in a multiple linear regression explained 40.7% of the variations in the bias. In this data-scarce study area (>2.5 million km2), the simple adjustment significantly improved the stations' CRU-PET as indicated by eight performance metrics. Furthermore, validation analysis shows a reduction of the overall mean bias error based on the 12 stations from −0.255 to 0.086 mm/day. To apply this correction method on a spatial domain, gridded precipitation data are needed. We used the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC 8) dataset, with which 41.9% of the CRU-PET bias is explained. In conclusion, this study cautions the use of CRU-PET dataset without prior evaluation in areas with similar geographical boundaries, climatic conditions and limited availability of data.