Reply on RC1 [* Cross-Reference *]

Sensitivity analysis revealed substantial sensitivity of the STIC-TI derived fluxes due to TS uncertainty and partial compensation of sensitivity of G to TS due to the nature of the equations used in the TI-based G model. An evaluation of STIC-TI G estimates with respect to in-situ measurements showed an error range of 12–21 % across six flux tower sites in both the hemispheres. A comparison of STIC-TI G estimates with other G models revealed substantially better performance of the former.

While the instantaneous noontime net radiation (RNi) and latent heat flux (LEi) was overestimated (15 % and 25 %), sensible heat flux (Hi) was underestimated with error of 22 %. The errors in Gi were associated with the errors in daytime TS and mismatch of footprint between the model estimates and measurements. Overestimation (underestimation) of LEi (Hi) was associated with the overestimation of net available energy (RNi – Gi) and use of unclosed SEB measurements.

Being independent of any leaf-scale conductance parameterization and having a coupled sub-model of G, STIC-TI can make valuable contribution to map and monitor water stress and evaporation in the terrestrial ecosystems using noon-night thermal infrared observations from existing and future EO missions such as INSAT 4th generation and TRISHNA. ***This entry has been automatically imported via OpenAlex by LIST harvest scripts.

Please refer to doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-356-ac1 for the original and latest version of the publication***