Resumen
Canopy resistance is a key parameter in the Penman?Monteith (P?M) equation for calculating evapotranspiration (ET). In this study, we compared a machine learning algorithm?support vector machine (SVM) and an analytical solution (Todorovic, 1999) for estimating canopy resistances. Then, these estimated canopy resistances were applied to the P?M equation for estimating ET; as a benchmark, a constant (fixed) canopy resistance was also adopted for ET estimations. ET data were measured using the eddy-covariance method above three sites: a grassland (south Ireland), Cypress forest (north Taiwan), and Cryptomeria forest (central Taiwan) were used to test the accuracy of the above two methods. The observed canopy resistance was derived from rearranging the P?M equation. From the measurements, the average canopy resistances for the grassland, Cypress forest, and Cryptomeria forest were 163, 346, and 321 (s/m), respectively. Our results show that both methods tend to reproduce canopy resistances within a certain range of intervals. In general, the SVM model performs better, and the analytical solution systematically underestimates the canopy resistances and leads to an overestimation of evapotranspiration. It is found that the analytical solution is only suitable for low canopy resistance (less than 100 s/m) conditions.