sensors

Review
Remote Sensing for Crop Water Management:
From ET Modelling to Services for the End Users
Alfonso Calera 1, *, Isidro Campos 1 , Anna Osann 1 , Guido D’Urso 2 and Massimo Menenti 3,4
1 GIS and Remote Sensing Group, Institute for Regional Development, University of Castilla-La Mancha,
Campus Universitario SN, 02071 Albacete, Spain; [email protected] (I.C.);
[email protected] (A.O.)
2 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100,
80055 Portici (NA), Italy; [email protected]
3 Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft ,
The Netherlands; [email protected]
4 State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth,
Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100101, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-967-599-200 (ext. 2626)

Academic Editors: Gherardo Chirici and Duccio Rocchini

Received: 10 March 2017; Accepted: 5 May 2017; Published: 11 May 2017

Abstract: The experiences gathered during the past 30 years support the operational use of irrigation
scheduling based on frequent multi-spectral image data. Currently, the operational use of dense
time series of multispectral imagery at high spatial resolution makes monitoring of crop biophysical
parameters feasible, capturing crop water use across the growing season, with suitable temporal and
spatial resolutions. These achievements, and the availability of accurate forecasting of meteorological
data, allow for precise predictions of crop water requirements with unprecedented spatial resolution.
This information is greatly appreciated by the end users, i.e., professional farmers or decision-makers,
and can be provided in an easy-to-use manner and in near-real-time by using the improvements
achieved in web-GIS methodologies (Geographic Information Systems based on web technologies).
This paper reviews the most operational and explored methods based on optical remote sensing for
the assessment of crop water requirements, identifying strengths and weaknesses and proposing
alternatives to advance towards full operational application of this methodology. In addition,
we provide a general overview of the tools, which facilitates co-creation and collaboration with
stakeholders, paying special attention to these approaches based on web-GIS tools.

Keywords: crop water requirements; irrigation water requirements; crop coefficient; web-GIS; earth
observation; evapotranspiration

1. Introduction
Pressure on water use is globally increasing, and water demand for agriculture is the main driver
for this pressure in many countries. The current demand of fresh water for agriculture in the world is
unsustainable as recognized by Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [1].
However, in spite of these increasing pressures, irrigation intensification is required to be increased for
food production for a growing population [2]. One of the possible ways to solve this dilemma could
be the improvement of the efficiency in water use for irrigation to achieve a sustainable intensification
of irrigated agriculture, in line with the definition of Garnett et al. [3] as “to produce more outputs
with a more efficient use of all inputs (including knowledge and know-how) on a durable basis”.
In the scheme of crop management, a good first step towards the improvement of water use
efficiency is the adequacy of the water applied to the actual crop requirements, pointing to the necessity

Sensors 2017, 17, 1104; doi:10.3390/s17051104 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 2 of 25

of adequate estimates of the net irrigation water requirements (NIWR). NIWR is the water that must be
supplied by irrigation to satisfy evapotranspiration, leaching and miscellaneous water supply that is
not provided by water stored in the soil and precipitation that enters the soil [4]. Therefore, calculation
of NIWR requires estimation of crop water requirements (CWR) and soil water balance where crop
evapotranspiration (ET) is the main component. A huge body of knowledge has been growing in
recent decades to estimate ET, CWR and NIWR. Manuals used worldwide to determine CWR and
NIWR, like FAO-24 [5] and FAO-56 [6], are milestones tracking this path, closely related to those that
describe the relationships between yield and water, like FAO-33 [7] and FAO-66 [8]. Nevertheless, the
complex interactions between root zone soil moisture flow, salinity build up, dry-matter production,
water quality degradation and opportunities to recycle water according to prevailing geo-hydrology
and drainage conditions will require the use of more complex models describing the system with
sufficient detail [9].
Most extension and irrigation advisory services at local and national scales were built on the wave
of the “Green Revolution” to help farmers supply the right amount of water to the crops to improve
the efficiency in the water use for irrigation. Nevertheless, better matching temporal and spatial
water supply to the actual crop demand is a challenging key issue for sustainable intensification, in
addition to nutrient supply and other agrochemical inputs. Despite its relevance and the efforts already
achieved, water management still faces a development bottleneck: it requires precise information
about the soil and plant conditions consistent across farms and from year to year. In addition, this
information must be available at the right temporal and spatial scales that match rapidly-evolving
capabilities to vary cultural procedures, irrigation and agrochemical inputs [10].
Remote sensing imagery from cameras on board satellites, aerial platforms, airplanes or similar
systems has been recognized as an exceptional tool to produce spatial information about ET.
Nevertheless, the lack of availability of timely images at the required spatial resolution, to be able
to capture the within-field variability of crop conditions over the growing cycle, has been hindering
the use of remote sensing approaches in practical applications. In 1984, in a seminar essay on the
potential use of remote sensing for making day-to-day farm management decisions, Ray Jackson [11]
stressed the overall importance to the growers of (a) timeliness, (b) frequency and (c) spatial resolution
of data. His observations have remained relevant; but the advances in communication technology
and computing, together with a large change in the data policy by National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) by the U.S. government, giving open and free access via the Internet to the
georeferenced Landsat images in near real time, are removing these barriers. The adoption by the
European Space Agency (ESA) of the same data policy, giving free and open access via the Internet to
the 10-m imagery acquired by Sentinel-2, is revolutionizing the satellite-based remote sensing system
for spatial resolutions in the range of 10–30 m. In addition, an increasing number of commercial
sensors at very high spatial resolution of 1–5 m, WorldView2, PLEIADES, DMC and DEIMOS, is ready
to provide frequent land observations with increasing capabilities.
Currently, the operational use of dense time series of remote sensing (RS)-based multispectral
imagery at high spatial resolution is able to monitor the crop biophysical parameters related with crop
ET and crop water use across the growing season, with suitable temporal and spatial resolutions. One
most prominent and direct application of these approaches in agriculture is irrigation management.
As described by Allen et al. [12], the benefits of these methodologies with respect to most classical
information sources (field measurements or general knowledge) are the possibility to cover large
areas, enabling sampling at high spatial resolutions and the zonation and/or integration over diverse
areas. In addition, these procedures are generally more economical than point measurements. The
literature is abundant in RS-based ET models or model variants and validations of these models
in different environments, surfaces and managements. Every model has strong scientific bases
and is well calibrated for ET assessment at particular temporal and spatial scales. The experiences
carried out within the PLEIADES project have confirmed that RS is a mature technology ready to be
transferred to operational applications in irrigation management [13], and the technological transfer
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 3 of 25

has already begun, where farmers find economic incentives to increase the irrigation efficiency [14].
Nevertheless, the translation of ET estimates into irrigation requirements and recommendation needs
further development, and it involves additional engineering methods and operative issues. In addition,
the physical meaning of the results is different for the various ET models, and these results have
different applications in agriculture. Both aspects must be considered prior to recommending the most
adequate model for different purposes, and from our point of view, the scientific literature is scarce in
reviews analyzing these aspects.
In this framework of research and practical application, this paper reviews the basis of the most
common methods based on RS for ET assessment with the focus on irrigation assessment in agriculture.
We provide a comprehensive review of the basis of these models and their applicability, identifying the
strengths and weaknesses and proposing alternatives to advance towards full operational application.
Considering that these approaches are eminently applied, this paper also contains guidelines needed
to provide a realistic estimation of remote sensing-based CWR and NIWR in operative schemes and an
extensive description of the most operational decision support systems based on these methodologies.

2. Remote Sensing-Based Estimates of Evapotranspiration

Most of the methodologies for ET assessment based on RS data are based on the big leaf area
model [15,16] and further developments of the Penman–Monteith equation. This schematization relies
on the surface energy balance and the resistances approach for describing the transport of water vapor,
distinguishing between bulk surface and aerodynamic resistances [16]. The Penman–Monteith equation
can be applied to estimate ET once surface and aerodynamic resistances are properly determined for
a crop cover of given characteristics, namely hemispherical surface albedo, Leaf Area Index (LAI)
and height, as well as meteorological conditions and soil water status. In the context of irrigation
scheduling, the Penman–Monteith equation has been implemented in the standard procedure for
estimating crop water requirements, commonly known as the FAO-56 method [6]. In this procedure,
the concept of ET under standard conditions is formalized, i.e., “from disease-free, well-fertilized
crops, grown in large fields, under optimum soil water conditions and achieving full production
under the given climatic conditions” This definition allows for considering a minimum value of the
stomatal resistance driving the transpiration process, which essentially becomes a function of the
crop development, through the above-mentioned characteristics. This approach, defined in [6] as the
“direct calculation”, needs crop characteristics measured or estimated for each crop patch. Diversely,
for a water-stressed crop, the surface resistance increases according to the physiological response
mechanisms, which are characteristics of each species. The ET under non-standard conditions hence
requires additional data to solve the surface energy balance or to compute the soil water balance.
The direct calculation has been used to improve the definition of reference ET, ETo, by considering
a well-watered hypothetical grass surface having fixed crop height (0.12 m), albedo (0.23) and LAI (2.88).
Then, FAO-56 promotes the concept of crop coefficients in the so-called “two-step” procedure [5,6,17],
which is now widely used in irrigation practice. In this procedure, ET is estimated as a product
of two factors [6]. The first factor is the evaporative power of the atmosphere, ETo. The second
factor in the “two-step” approach is the crop coefficient, Kc, which includes three parameters: a
transpiration coefficient or basal crop coefficient, Kcb, the evaporative component of the bare soil
fraction, Ke [18], and the water stress coefficient, Ks, which is related to the soil water content through
the water balance in the root soil layer. In this framework, the Kcb is defined as the ratio between plant
transpiration in the absence of water stress and reference ETo. In contrast with the strong temporal
variability of ET values, the evolution of Kcb over time can be represented by a smooth continuous
function. Depending on the variable measured from satellites, three main RS approaches for ET
estimation have been applied: (a) based on surface energy balance (RSEB), (b) reflectance-based crop
coefficient (reflectance-based Kcb) and (c) by directly applying remote sensing-based parameters into
the Penman–Monteith equation (RS-PM). Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the framework
for the integration of the different models for the assessment of CWR and NIWR.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 4 of 25
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 4 of 25
representation of the framework for the integration of the different models for the assessment of CWR
and NIWR.

Figure 1. Overview
Figure 1. Overview of
of the
the remote
remote sensing-based
sensing-based approaches
approaches forfor estimates
estimates of
of evapotranspiration
evapotranspiration and
and
net
net irrigation water requirements. The spatial scale of these approaches is related to
irrigation water requirements. The spatial scale of these approaches is related to the
the pixel
pixel size
size of
of
the
the utilized
utilized image
image data.
data.

2.1.
2.1. The
The Reflectance-Based
Reflectance-Based BasalBasal Crop Coefficient (Kcb)
Crop Coefficient (Kcb)
The
The initial
initial research relating crop
research relating crop development
development and and canopy
canopy reflectance
reflectance was was developed
developed during during
the
the 1970s
1970s [19,20],
[19,20], and much of this work had its foundation in research developed during the 1960s,
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104and much of this work had its foundation in research developed during the 1960s, 5 of 25
as
as compiled by Pinteretetal.al.[21].
compiled by Pinter Some
[21]. Someof these authors
of these already
authors postulated
already postulatedthe possible
the possibleuse ofusethese
of
relationships
these for
relationships the estimation
for theET of
estimation crop transpiration
of cropthese and
transpiration the desirable use of these approaches for
fluxes, hence the actual of crops. When methods and the desirable
are applied use of these
over irrigated areasapproaches
(where in
irrigation
for irrigationassessment
assessment in operative
in operative scenarios
scenarios [22]. Following
[22]. Following the thedevelopment
development ofofthe “two-step”
thecalibration
“two-step”
most cases ET can be considered under standard conditions), they result in a massive of
procedure,
procedure, some pioneers
some pioneers provided
provided empirical
empirical evidence about
evidenceofabout the direct
the directand relationship
relationship between the Kcb
the single Kc-VIs relationships without the necessity cumbersome expensivebetween the Kcb
field campaigns
values
values with the
with the VI derived from multispectral satellite images [23–25] (see Figure 2).
measuring ET. VI derived from multispectral satellite images [23–25] (see Figure 2).
Despite the empirical evidence, the physics underlying the Kcb-VI relationships was
controversial. The arguments in favor of the causal Kcb-VI relationship include the direct relationship
between Kcb and the fraction of photosynthetic active radiation absorbed by the canopy (fPAR) and
the relationship of these parameters with the VIs. Some analytical approaches relating Kcb-VI and
fPAR were proposed by several authors during the following decades [26–31].
The initial relationships already presented were developed in terms of empirical values of VI
and tabulated or common values for herbaceous crops, such as wheat and corn. The development
and popularization of different methods for the measurement of crop ET, such as lysimeters, eddy
covariance and Bowen ratio techniques, provided a new source of data for the development of
empirical Kcb-VI relationships, and a large number of crops were added to the classical species. Some
examples are the Kcb-VI relationships derived and evaluated for potato [32], cotton [33], sugar
beets [34] and vegetable crops, including garlic, bell pepper, broccoli and lettuce [35]. The advantage
of using Kcb-VI is recognized for almost every crop, but the benefit of these methods applied to fruit
Figure2.2.Comparison
Comparisonof ofthe
theKcb
Kcbcurves
curvesdescribed
trees Figure
is of paramount importance. The described byWright,
by
differences Wright,J.L.
in local J.L.inin1983
1983[18]
practices [18]for
forwheat
wheatand
(planting andcorn
cornand
densities, and
plant
thetemporal
the temporalevolution
evolutionofofNDVI
NDVIfor forboth
bothcrops
cropsininAlbacete
Albacete(Spain)
(Spain)during
duringthe
the2016
2016growing
growingseason.
season.
architecture and the management of the crop understory) have a great effect on the actual value of
the crop coefficient, and studies have demonstrated the capability of the Kcb derived from VI to
2.2. Remote Sensing-Based Penman–Monteith Direct Approaches
captureDespite
thesethevariations.
empirical evidence,
Along this the line,
physics underlying
successful the Kcb-VI relationships
developments have been was made controversial.
for pecan
The arguments
trees As mentioned
[36], in favor
vineyards of
before,thethe
[37,38] causal
and Kcb-VI
direct relationship
calculation
apples the include
[39],of and severaltheattempts
Penman–Monteith direct relationship
equation
have been between
can be used
made Kcb
into
and the
estimate
natural fraction of
the maximum
vegetation photosynthetic active radiation absorbed by the canopy (fPAR)
[40,41].fluxes of evaporation from soil (E) and transpiration from plant leaves (T) and the relationship
ofonce
these parameters
Inprovided
addition to with
with thethe
the VIs. Some
canopy
previous analytical
parameters
research, approaches
related
based on to therelating
surfaceKcb-VI
ground-based and fPAR
properties
measurements [45]; were proposed
essentially
of ET, the
special
by several
surface andauthors
canopy during the
resistances following
(r and rdecades
, [26–31].
respectively) and the net
attention should be paid to those relationships based on VI data and ET estimated based on
s c radiation (Rn). These parameters
are, in turn, related
thermal-based remote tosensing
three parameters derived
models [42–44]. frommethods
These RS data:allownamely,for athe Leaf Area Index
determination (LAI),
of latent the
heat
crop height (hc) and the surface albedo (r). The variable rc is inversely related to the active LAI and,
in turn, dependent on the maximum resistance of a single leaf. The active LAI is the index of the leaf
area that actively contributes to the surface heat and vapor transfer [6]. It is generally the upper, sunlit
portion of a dense canopy and can be approximated by 0.5 × LAI [45]. The maximum resistance of a
single leaf is crop-specific and differs among crop varieties and crop management [6], but a fixed
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 5 of 25

The initial relationships already presented were developed in terms of empirical values of VI
and tabulated or common values for herbaceous crops, such as wheat and corn. The development
and popularization of different methods for the measurement of crop ET, such as lysimeters, eddy
covariance and Bowen ratio techniques, provided a new source of data for the development of empirical
Kcb-VI relationships, and a large number of crops were added to the classical species. Some examples
are the Kcb-VI relationships derived and evaluated for potato [32], cotton [33], sugar beets [34] and
vegetable crops, including garlic, bell pepper, broccoli and lettuce [35]. The advantage of using
Kcb-VI is recognized for almost every crop, but the benefit of these methods applied to fruit trees is of
paramount importance. The differences in local practices (planting densities, plant architecture and
the management of the crop understory) have a great effect on the actual value of the crop coefficient,
and studies have demonstrated the capability of the Kcb derived from VI to capture these variations.
Along this line, successful developments have been made for pecan trees [36], vineyards [37,38] and
apples [39], and several attempts have been made in natural vegetation [40,41].
In addition to the previous research, based on ground-based measurements of ET, special attention
should be paid to those relationships based on VI data and ET estimated based on thermal-based
remote sensing models [42–44]. These methods allow for a determination of latent heat fluxes, hence
the actual ET of crops. When these methods are applied over irrigated areas (where in most cases ET
can be considered under standard conditions), they result in a massive calibration of the single Kc-VIs
relationships without the necessity of cumbersome and expensive field campaigns measuring ET.

2.2. Remote Sensing-Based Penman–Monteith Direct Approaches

As mentioned before, the direct calculation of the Penman–Monteith equation can be used to
estimate the maximum fluxes of evaporation from soil (E) and transpiration from plant leaves (T) once
provided with the canopy parameters related to the surface properties [45]; essentially the surface
and canopy resistances (rs and rc , respectively) and the net radiation (Rn). These parameters are, in
turn, related to three parameters derived from RS data: namely, the Leaf Area Index (LAI), the crop
height (hc ) and the surface albedo (r). The variable rc is inversely related to the active LAI and, in turn,
dependent on the maximum resistance of a single leaf. The active LAI is the index of the leaf area that
actively contributes to the surface heat and vapor transfer [6]. It is generally the upper, sunlit portion
of a dense canopy and can be approximated by 0.5 × LAI [45]. The maximum resistance of a single
leaf is crop-specific and differs among crop varieties and crop management [6], but a fixed value of
100 m/s can be considered in operative approaches [45]. The canopy architecture parameter used in the
estimation of rc is the canopy height. Although the formulation can vary depending on meteorological
conditions (stability), it is generally accepted that, in agricultural fields under well-watered conditions,
the stability correction is not needed. In addition, in most cases for irrigated environments, the
radiative component of the Penman–Monteith equation is dominant over the aerodynamic term; hence,
a fixed value of crop height can be considered (i.e., 0.4 m for herbaceous crops, 1.2 m for tree crops)
without significantly affecting the final accuracy. There is substantial literature on the estimation of
the two most relevant canopy parameters, surface albedo and LAI from VIS-NIR observations, based
either on empirical relationships with different VIs or physically-based methods, such as radiative
transfer models [46,47]. This approach offers the advantage of a validation based on the estimated
accuracy of albedo and LAI, the latter easily measurable in the field by means of portable optical
analyzers. A similar methodology is the base of the MOD16 global ET product [48,49] and further
applications in natural vegetation and regional scales [50–53]. This method has been evaluated for ET
estimates and irrigation management at the scale of irrigation schemes [54], in fruit trees [55–57] and is
the basis of an irrigation advisory service operational in Italy, Austria and Australia [58].

2.3. The Remote Sensing Surface Energy Balance

The remote sensing surface energy balance approaches (RSEB) derive surface fluxes from the
energy balance equation [59–62] by calculating the required variables from RS primary and secondary
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 6 of 25

observables [63]. In particular, latent heat flux, λET, is estimated as the residual term of the surface
energy balance equation:
λET = Rn − G − H (1)

where λ indicates the latent heat of the vaporization of water (J·kg−1 ), Rn is the net radiation flux
(W·m−2 ), G is the soil heat flux and H is the sensible heat flux. The main observables are the
bi-hemispherical surface reflectance, which determines Rn, and the radiometric surface temperature
(TR ), derived from thermal band imagery, and used to compute the sensible heat flux. The different
schemes of RSEB models differ as to how the difference between TR and the aerodynamic temperature,
To , is addressed. This difference is needed to compute the sensible heat. TR and To are clearly
related [64], but this relationship is highly complex, since TR depends on the temperature of the
different elements that occupy the radiometer view, while To depends on surface aerodynamic
roughness, wind speed and the coupling of soil and canopy elements to the atmosphere.
The simplest RS-based SEB approaches use empirical/semi-empirical methods for adjusting TR to
To , tuned to account for the spatial variability in the roughness lengths for heat and momentum
transport [65–68]. Other approaches avoid the problem by computing the aerodynamic to air
gradient, TA -To , needed to compute the latent heat flux. These methods are based on selecting
pixels in the satellite image representing the extreme heat and water exchanging surfaces. Then, they
calculate the spatially-distributed sensible heat flux, assuming a linear relationship between TR and
the near-surface air temperature gradient across the image [59,69–71]. Other TR -based approaches
model the effects of partial vegetation cover on To using two-source model parameterizations [64,72],
which partition surface fluxes between the soil and canopy components of the scene. This more
physically-based approach does not require in situ calibration, although most implementations
do require accurate radiometric temperature measurements. Anderson et al. [73] proposed an
improvement of a two-source scheme by incorporating a simple description of planetary boundary
layer dynamics. The resulting atmosphere-land exchange inverse (ALEXI) and an associated flux
disaggregation technique (DisALEXI) are a multi-sensor thermal approach to ET mapping that reduces
the need for ancillary data input and is able to deal with errors in TR remote estimation by using the
rate of change in TR observations [74,75].
The partitioning of available energy through TR inherently accounts for the increase of plant
temperature under water stress conditions [22,76], and successful model validation under water
stress conditions has been regularly published [62,77,78]. A comparison between a two-source model
and an internally-calibrated model over herbaceous crops [79] showed a reasonable agreement with
ground measurements. This approach is very attractive in the calibration and validation of the other
approaches presented here [80] and for applications such as water stress assessment. Water stress is an
important indicator for the evaluation of adequate crop water management in precision agriculture.
Stress indicators are useful to diagnose the causes of crop yield variability and develop management
strategies [81] in water-limited environments. The most classical indicator of crop water stress that uses
RS data without using direct measurements [63] is the crop water stress index (CWSI) based on the
difference between air and canopy temperature [22,76]. Later development of the CWI considered the
effect of partial canopy covers in the surface temperature, as is the case of the surface-air temperature
and VI relationships [62], and further developments and simplifications [60,82]. The literature is
profuse in the use of CWSI or similar indicators for the assessment of crop water status and irrigation
scheduling [83–86]. These indices and other diagnostic tools are indicators of the plant water status,
revealing the effects of the water deficit, but they cannot predict the irrigation timing or amount
needed to maintain the crop under optimum conditions. Other approaches to water stress, such as
the hyperspectral indices, have gathered promising results in agriculture [87–90] in addition to other
stress indicators based on multispectral satellite signal, such as the Normalized Difference Water Index
(NDWI) [91], and are attractive for extensive applications in natural vegetation.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 7 of 25

2.4. Coupling Models

The soil water balance models based on remote sensing data (RS-SWB models) provide continuous
and predictive estimation of the soil water content, cumulative ET [92] and irrigation requirements.
However, for an adequate estimation of these components, the SWB model requires knowledge of the
water inputs, precipitation and irrigation, and the soil hydraulic properties, i.e., actual and maximum
amount of soil water storage in the root zone, if classical static volume balance approaches are used.
Accurate values of maximum and actual water content are necessary in every SWB model, although
both concepts could be represented with different notations [6,17,73,93]. The actual content can be
estimated when the balance is maintained for long periods, departing from dates when the soil can
be considered at full capacity, but the uncertainties about the spatial variability of the water inputs
(mainly precipitation) and the inaccuracy in estimating other components result in significant bias
at large spatial scales and for long periods. In addition, the practical operation of these models is
also limited by the narrow knowledge about the soil properties, which define the water retention,
field capacity and wilting point, in addition to the actual root depths for most of the crops growing in
heterogeneous areas.
Within the six approaches classified by Wang-Erlandsson et al. [94], for the estimation of root
zone water storage capacity, RS-based studies are generally based on field observations and look up
tables [95–98]. Nevertheless, some recent studies propose the optimization-calibration and inverse
modelling approaches with diverse purposes. Some approaches assimilate into the soil water balance
models, either water stress estimates based on canopy temperature [99,100] or ET estimates based
on SEB models [73,92,95,101], in order to calibrate the fraction of water depleted derived from the
water balance model. In a slightly different approach, some authors propose the integration of
actual ET values in order to calibrate the soil water balance model in terms of the root zone storage
capacity [94,102–104]. The rationale of these approaches is that any empirical approach to the plant
water stress, or alternative formulations as those based on the canopy temperature, must be equivalent
to the soil water stress, a stress index based on the parametrization of the soil properties [101]. Both
approaches to water stress result in similar values only if the SWB model is properly initialized and
maintained. Therefore, those variables with large uncertainties, as is the case of the fraction of water
depleted or the root zone storage capacity, can be calibrated.
However, the lack of information about the actual irrigation scheduling adopted by the farmers
is the critical limitation when applying soil water balance models. Irrigation criteria adopted by
farmers depend on several factors related to the operation and management of irrigation conveyance
and distribution systems and to farmers’ perception about the best time and duration of irrigation
applications. This issue might be addressed by using deterministic or stochastic approaches to
parametrize farmers’ behavior [105]. Still, remote sensing is very valuable in this context since the
knowledge of the actual development of crops is one of the most important variables in the description
of this process.

2.5. Advances Achieved in Proximal Remote Sensing

The denomination of proximal remote sensing includes a wide range of devices mounted in
ground-based and aerial platforms, including aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). In recent
years, we have assisted the increase in the use of UAVs in agriculture. The reasons for this increase
are multiple: affordable cost, relative simplicity for operation and images post-processing, in addition
to exceptional technical advances in the cost reductions and the size of sensors related to the Global
Positioning System, pre-programmed flights, inertial movement units and auto-pilots [106].
These systems can fill some of the gaps in our observational capabilities exclusively based on
extra-terrestrial platforms. Regarding the assessment of ET and irrigation requirements, the methods
analyzed in this work can be also based on the images acquired by UAVs, providing the needed spatial
resolution in some agricultural areas and reducing the impact of cloudiness in the optical satellite
images. Although the compatibility between satellite and proximal RS is evident, the images based on
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 8 of 25

UAV platforms are mainly used in applications that require exceptional spatial resolution or when
the phenomena analyzed occur in short temporal periods [107,108]. In this line, several approaches
analyzed the use of very high resolution images for the assessment of nutrition or water stress indices
at the scale of the row or the tree crown scale [87–90,109], gathering promising results in agriculture.

2.6. Strength and Weakness of the RS-Based Models for Irrigation Assessment
The great strength of the reflectance-based models from the point of view of crop irrigation
management is the capability to estimate the potential crop transpiration, based on the temporal
evolution of the RS-based Kcb and the actual ETo values. This ability of VI enables the description
of the photosynthetic magnitude of the canopy [110–112]. Reflectance-based basal crop coefficients
represent the “potential” or maximum ratio between transpiration and ETo for the canopy, as happens
for an unstressed canopy following the definition of the Kcb concept. The advantages of VI-based
Kcb estimation for irrigation assessment are clear as proposed by Allen et al. [12] in a review of
the methods used for ET estimation: (a) probably the simplest method to introduce RS data is
the operational application of the Penman–Monteith formulation for ET assessment known as the
“two-step” methodology, which enables quick analyses that can be made by mid-level technicians;
(b) large areas can be covered; and (c) a very high spatial resolution if aerial imagery is used.
As indicated by the same authors, the main weaknesses of the methods based on the Kcb-VIs for
crop ET assessment are: (a) the estimation of the evaporation component (from soil) is less certain
than the transpiration component because of the lack of a direct relationship with vegetation amount;
(b) the relationships tend to overestimate transpiration under conditions of water shortage; and (c) the
relationships may vary with the type of vegetation; stomatal control (and thus Kcb-VI relationships)
can vary among types of vegetation.
The variation in the Kcb-VI relationships can be perceived in the compilation of equations
based on the most used multispectral vegetation indices, as is the case of the normalized difference
vegetation index (NDVI) and the soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI), presented in Table 1. The
relationships shown in Table 1 reveal a similarity for those relationships that reach the maximum
NDVI or SAVI values, typically around 0.9 for NDVI and 0.7 for SAVI, resulting in a mean Kcb value
of 1.14 and a standard deviation (SD) equal to 0.08. The main differences appear for bare soil, the
corresponding NDVI value being around 0.15 and the SAVI value around 0.1. Some relationships
consider a minimum Kcb equal to zero for bare soil [30,31,34,113], arguing that no transpiration occurs
for bare soil conditions. Other Kcb-VI relationships are established in terms of Kcb values greater than
zero for bare soil conditions [23,35,37,114]. This has been recurrently analyzed in the literature, as early
as Wright [18] and Allen et al. [6]. Torres and Calera [115] demonstrated empirically that this residual
Kcb can be expected for bare soil conditions and should be attributed to the evaporation component
rather than plant transpiration [113]. The discussion about the most adequate minimum Kcb in
reproducing the crop ET is still open, and further detailed analysis will be necessary for providing a
practical solution.
Differences in the VIs measured with different instruments, and the difficulty to measure canopy
transpiration, in addition to the effects of the crop physiology and structure in the ET process
could be the basis of the mentioned discrepancies. The effect of the measurement instruments
depends on the sensor’s spectral and radiometric resolutions [116], differences in the acquisition
angle [117,118], atmospheric correction, sensor degradation and the correctness of the calibration
process [119]. These sources of uncertainty can be minimized by applying cross-calibration approaches
and ensuring the compatibility of the data-sources [116]. Additional differences might be attributed to
the well-documented variances in the stomatal response for the different species [120,121] in contrast
to the insensibility to these changes of the VI used for the assessment of Kcb.
Some Kcb-VI relationships exhibit very good agreement for different crops. Odi-Lara et al. [39]
and Campos et al. [122] found that the relationship described by Campos et al. [37] in row vineyards
was adequate for ET assessment in apple trees and Mediterranean holm oak savanna. Hornbuckle [123]
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 9 of 25

concluded that several relationships, developed for multiple different crops [124], are valid for
the assessment of vineyard ET in Australia. Melton et al. [125] proposed the use of a generalized
relationship for real-time and operational purposes and apply crop-specific relationships a posteriori,
when information about crop architecture is available.

Table 1. Compilation of Kcb-VI relationships found in the literature.

Crop Equation Reference

Corn Kcb = 1.36 × NDVI − 0.06 [23]
Wheat Kcb = 1.46 × NDVI − 0.26 [30]
Cotton Kcb = 1.49 × NDVI − 0.12 [33]
Wheat Kcb = 1.93 × NDVI3 − 2.57 × NDVI2 + 1.63 × NDVI − 0.18 [126]
Wheat Kcb = 1.64 × NDVI − 0.12 [31]
Row vineyard Kcb = 1.44 × NDVI−0.1 [37]
Garlic Kcb = −1.56 × NDVI2 + 2.66 × NDVI − 0.08 [35]
Bell pepper Kcb = −0.12 × NDVI2 + 1.45 × NDVI − 0.06 [35]
Broccoli Kcb = −1.48 × NDVI2 + 2.64 × NDVI − 0.17 [35]
Lettuce Kcb = −0.11 × NDVI2 + 1.39 × NDVI + 0.01 [35]
Corn Kcb = 1.77 × SAVI + 0.02 [127]
Potato Kcb = 1.36 × SAVI + 0.06 [32]
Sugar beet Kcb = 1.74 × SAVI − 0.16 [34]
Row vineyard Kcb = 1.79 × SAVI − 0.08 [37]
Cotton Kcb = 1.74 × SAVI − 0.16 [113]
Garlic Kcb = 1.82 × SAVI − 0.16 [113]
Olive Kcb = 1.59 × SAVI − 0.14 [113]
Mandarin Kcb = 0.99 × SAVI − 0.09 [113]
Peach Kcb = 1.29 × SAVI − 0.12 [113]
Apple trees Kcb = 1.82 ± 0.19 × SAVI − 0.07 ± 0.06 [39]

The RS-PM methods are also in surface reflectance, thus the strength and weakness are similar
to the reflectance-based Kcb models. The RS-PM approach solves the problem of the estimation of
the resistances in the Penman–Monteith formulation for the conditions of a well-watered canopy. The
parameters used in the respective solutions are strongly related with RS data and the key parameters,
LAI, albedo and hc, and these variables describe smooth-continuous functions that can be easily
interpolated over time. The weaknesses are in the crop-specific LAI-Vis’ and hc-Vis’ relationships,
the impossibility to reflect the effect of the water stress in the ET process and the role of the soil
evaporation. In a complete analysis of the LAI-VIs, Anderson et al. [128] concluded that the LAI-Vis’
relationships were relatively stable for two different crops (corn and soybean) using determinate
VIs. Similarly, Vuolo et al. [129] concluded that the models and calibration parameters used to
estimate LAI from VIs can be transferred across different environments, management practices and
for multiple crops, including alfalfa, corn, sugar beet and vineyards. In addition, according to the
sensitivity analysis published by Consoli et al. [55] and D’Urso [45], the deviation of ET values
by considering a constant value of hc, over a wide range of leaf area indices, is lower than 10%.
Furthermore, the availability of sensors with improved spectral and spatial resolution, such as MSI
on board the Sentinel-2 satellite, allows the application of inversion methods to canopy radiation
transfer models to estimate crop biophysical parameters with greater reliability compared to other
methods. These methods take into account the bidirectional reflectance distribution effects of the
canopy, as well as the actual illumination-viewing geometry of the sensors. Artificial neural networks
have proven to be effective in terms of accuracy and computational time [130], and tools are provided
in freely available packages, such as the Sentinel Application Platform (SNAP), developed by the
ESA to estimate LAI, fractional vegetation cover, and other parameters from Sentinel-2 data (https:
//sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/toolboxes/sentinel-2). Experimental studies have shown the accuracy
of this approach for LAI or ET estimation in different environments and crops.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 10 of 25

The weakness of RSEB approaches is the representativeness of the ET estimates over time because
they provide an instantaneous estimation of the ET at the image acquisition time. This instantaneous
value must be extrapolated to daily amounts on a physical basis, such as the conservation of the energy
partitioning [79] or the stability of the crop coefficient [69]. The time gaps between estimates of ET
for all satellite systems may bias daily-to-seasonal estimates. As pointed out by Allen et al. [69], the
effects of precipitation or irrigation events occurring between satellite overpasses may be missed,
resulting in underestimation of seasonal ET. In addition, processing of images impacted from recent
precipitation events could lead to an overestimation of the seasonal values of ET if these images are
used in the interpolation. In the framework of NIWR estimates, another operative issue is the adequate
interpretation of ET data obtained under water stress conditions. According to the definitions provided
in the Introduction, NIWR is the amount of water that should be applied in order to maintain the crop
transpiring at its potential rate. Acquiring ET data under water stress conditions could lead to an
underestimation of NIWR if the actual values are not compared with the potential (and eventually
desired) ET rates for the analyzed canopies. In addition to these weaknesses, the limited availability
of thermal observations in terms of spatial and temporal resolution hampers the development of
operational applications of surface energy balance from remote sensing.
In general terms, the main difference between RSEB models with respect to RS-PM and
reflectance-based Kcb approaches is the assessment of water stress, but the three approaches should
result in similar values when applied under non-water limited conditions. Singh and Irmak [44] found
that a Kc-NDVI relationship derived from the SEBAL model (Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for
Land) is able to reproduce the actual ET measured with a Bowen ratio station. Tasumi et al. [42]
concluded that the ET estimates from a Kc-NDVI relationships correspond well with the results of the
model METRIC (Mapping Evapotranspiration aT high Resolution with Internal Calibration) applied
for multiple crops in an irrigated area in Idaho. Rafn et al. [43] demonstrated that the results of three
Kc-NDVI relationships, derived from empirical or analytical approaches, are within the range of
±10% of the ET estimate based on the METRIC model. Hunsaker et al. [33] found similar yield and
water productivity in cotton plots irrigated following the Kc-NDVI relationship and the Kc values
recommended in the FAO-56 manual (adapted to the area, planting dates and crop development).
Rubio et al. [80] published a direct comparison of two RSEB models, the RS-PM approach and the
reflectance-based Kcb. These authors concluded that the RS-PM and reflectance-based Kcb models
are in agreement with each other, although these authors did avoid the direct comparison of both
approaches with RSEB models because of their different nature. Similarly, D´Urso et al. [13] obtained a
comparable accuracy when the reflectance-based Kcb and the RS-PM models are applied to herbaceous
crops, like corn, alfalfa and wheat. Gonzalez-Dugo et al. [79] compared three RSEB models and
the reflectance-based Kcb approach for the assessment of ET in irrigated herbaceous crops. These
authors obtained similar accuracy for every model, but the two-source RSEB and the reflectance-based
Kcb were the approaches with the lower RMSE. In the view of the results, we can conclude that all
models provide similar results in the assessment of the ET of irrigated herbaceous crops (homogeneous
canopies under non-water-limited conditions). Further studies should analyze if these differences in
the accuracy of the model have a measurable impact in irrigation assessment systems.
Although each model has been evaluated in other crops, as is the case of horticultural and fruit
trees, we did not find comparative studies running different models on the same conditions. Future
studies comparing different approaches for these crops and in operative schemes will provide further
insights on model performance. An interesting research line, no yet translated to the scientific literature,
is the implementation of the models in the daily routine in operational scenarios. The development of
this research line, quantifying the actual improvements in terms of water productivity or economic
returns, is necessary in the short term and will provide arguments for the adoption of these technologies
in the sector. In addition, the accumulation of knowledge and experimental evidence will provide
certainty about the actual consequences of the propagation of the errors associated with the models
used for the ET assessment.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 11 of 25

In addition, the interest of these methods goes beyond the perspective of irrigation management.
Although it is not discussed in this paper, the output of this remote sensing-based soil water balance
paves the way for water accounting at the pixel scale for water governance and environmental purposes.
The methodologies discussed here can be used for the assessment of irrigation performance indicators
in large areas [131,132] and the analysis of the sustainability of irrigated systems [133]. Special mention
deserves the analysis of water productivity in great areas [134] or at the global scale as proposed in
the FAO-WAPOR program (FAO WAter PROductivity, available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/
remote-sensing-for-water-productivity/en/). Finally, we identify promising perspectives for the use
of this methodology together with on-site flowmeters to enforce legal rules about monitoring permitted
abstraction volumes to use for irrigation [135].

3. Operational Use of Remote Sensing for Irrigation Water Management

3.1. Monitoring the Crop Development at the Right Spatial and Temporal Scale
Monitoring crop development and crop ET over the growing season for the purpose of irrigation
management requires dense time series of multispectral imagery at a spatial resolution high enough to
resolve within-field variability and delivered in real time. The spatial and temporal resolution of the
resulting maps of ET and NIWR depend on the pixel size of the input imagery. In addition, and given
that the crop evolves rapidly in most cases, single satellite sensors or platforms cannot adequately
capture these changes due to their limited temporal resolution and the impact of cloudiness in the
optical and thermal satellite images. In a commentary about the future of the remote sensing-based ET,
Fisher et al. [136] highlighted that neither planned nor existing space missions have been specified to
fully meet the spatial, temporal, spectral and accuracy requirements outlined for complete ET-based
science and applications. However, virtual constellations of planned and existing satellites help to
overcome this limitation by combining all available observations to mitigate the limitations of any one
particular sensor [137]. For models based on reflectance-based VI and further secondary variables,
which rely on VIS-NIR imagery, the pixel size ranges usually between 5 and 30 m using most of
the commercial (World View, Rapid Eye, DMC and DEIMOS) and free images from the sensors on
Landsat 8 and Sentinel-2a currently in orbit. Accordingly, the virtual constellation of Landsat 8 and
Sentinel-2a currently provides, at no cost, a time resolution of around one image per week, which
can be considered as a minimum for the adequate monitoring of crop development. The time series
of both sensors are accessible through the USGS (http://glovis.usgs.gov/) and Copernicus (https:
//cophub.copernicus.eu/) sites. In addition, some companies, like Amazon S3 (https://aws.amazon.
com/es/public-data-sets/landsat/) and Google Earth Engine (https://earthengine.google.com/), are
offering catalogs of satellite imagery from both sensors at the planetary scale, as well as additional
cloud computing capabilities. The use of multi-sensor virtual constellations is the only way to ensure
the frequent availability of cloud-free images. Yet, the actual number of images effectively usable in
an area or period can be seriously impacted by clouds, even considering multiple platforms. Some
initiatives, like the recent launching of Sentinel-2b, foreseen for 2017 (https://earth.esa.int/web/
guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/sentinel-2), will increase the availability of cloud-free
imagery. Currently, as presented in the next section, the demand for irrigation recommendations
and the implementation of operational services is primarily in arid and semiarid areas characterized
mostly by low precipitation and high atmospheric demand, which are only minimally affected by
clouds. However, the implementation of these methods in areas of significant cloudiness must also
be considered.
The availability of dense time series of images at the global scale also implies the necessity of
massive storage, automatic download and archiving and computing capabilities as provided by the
companies cited above. However, the accessibility to the images (free of charge and near-real-time
processing capabilities) provided by the ESA and NASA incentivizes the development of the operative
services analyzed in this paper and opens the possibility of the massive use and validation of the cited
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 12 of 25

approaches. In this line, we recognize the effort made to make publicly available the codes of SEBS
(Surface Energy Balance System, http://pcraster.geo.uu.nl/projects/applications/sebs/) or METRIC
(https://cran.r-project.org/).
ET products based on RSEB can have medium spatial resolution for most operational satellites.
The pixel size ranges from 100 m for the thermal sensor on board Landsat 8 to 1000 m for
MODIS-AQUA, MODIS-TERRA and Sentinel-3; additional data sources and downscaling algorithms
and interpolation methods can be used to improve the temporal and spatial resolution. From the
point of view of crop management, the strength of these models is the assessment of surface ET
also under water stress conditions and further indicators of water stress and irrigation performance.
Nevertheless, the spatial resolution of thermal images provided by the most operational platforms
is not appropriate for small agricultural fields [12] since the pixels may overlay broad mixtures and
densities of crops so that surface temperature signals are mixed and the ET retrievals are difficult
to interpret. Therefore, from an operative point of view for irrigation management, the procedures
based on satellite canopy temperatures seems to be complementary with that previously described,
providing an independent quality control in the suitable areas. Efforts are ongoing to implement
disaggregation techniques to increase the effective spatial resolution from satellite thermal imagery,
reaching spatial resolutions comparable to the most common multispectral images [138]. In addition,
the spatial resolution can be improved up to 2–5 m from aerial images, and growing advances on the
use of airborne thermal cameras show very promising perspectives to produce temperature maps at
very high spatial resolution [88,139].

3.2. RS-Based Irrigation Scheduling: Implementation

As presented and discussed in the previous sections, time series of current multispectral imagery
that provides canopy reflectance can be directly converted, either through Kcb-VI relationships, or
using more complex models, into maps of Kcb, or related variables describing the potential crop water
use. Gap filling techniques between images close in time allow the production of daily maps of the
variables of interest, LAI, hc or, directly, Kcb, taking advantage of smooth-continuous curves described
by these parameters and so avoiding the pernicious effects of cloudiness. The product of these Kcb
maps and reference evapotranspiration, or the solution of the PM equation using RS inputs, directly
provides the daily potential transpiration on a pixel by pixel basis. For the adequate determination
of NIWR, both VI-based Kcb RS-PM models require the assessment of soil water content. These
approaches estimate crop ET on the noted models, and this ET is connected to the water balance in
order to update the water depletion in the soil layer accessed by the roots. Irrigation timings and
amount assessment will depend on the estimates of water depleted and water holding capacity in
the root zone. For these reasons, some of these approaches have been integrated into a classical soil
water balance, like that described in FAO-56 [6], demonstrating good performance for the assessment
of irrigation water requirements [96,140,141] in comparison with actual irrigation data. The literature
is replete in soil water balance models, with different degrees of realism and complexity, but the
approaches based on remote sensing data are generally based on relatively simple models [95] because
these approaches have a clear inclination for operational applications at large scales. For these scales,
detailed information about the soil properties is scarce [73]. According to the FAO-56 procedures, it is
possible to calculate these RS-based NIWR irrigation water requirements also under water stress, as is
used either in controlled deficit irrigation or in supplemental irrigation. Knowledge of the desired
water stress degree is required, and further calibration of the methodology and the evaluation of
irrigation management using diagnostic tools is always recommended.
In these models, soil evaporation is calculated by separately applying a soil water balance in
the soil top layer as proposed by Allen et al. [6] and Torres and Calera [115]. This approach requires
the knowledge of the irrigation timing and amount, which is generally unknown for great areas.
Alternatively, some authors working at large scales, with scarce field data, proposed the concept of a
synthetic crop coefficient [113] that accounts for mean soil evaporation derived from canopy cover
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 13 of 25

estimates. Microwave remote sensing could provide insight on the bare soil evaporation, although
the scales of observation for the current sensors SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) and SMOS (Soil
Moisture Ocean Salinity) (20 km) [142,143] is too coarse for the agriculture scale of interest.
Some initiatives implementing satellite-based irrigation advisory services have been developed in
Southern Italy, with IRRISAT (Irrigation assisted by Satellite, http://www.irrisat.it), in Lower Austria,
with EO4Water (Earth Observation for Water resources management, http://eo4water.com), and in
Southern Australia, with IRRiEYE (South Australian Trial for a Satellite Irrigation Advisory Service,
http://www.irrieye.com). These systems are based on the RS-PM method [58]. Thus, the calculation
of crop ET and suggested irrigation depth (pixel and plot scale) is based on the LAI calculation from
surface reflectance values and meteorological data. Remotely-sensed data from the virtual constellation
of Landsat 8, Sentinel-2 and DEIMOS are used to derive crop parameters (LAI and surface albedo)
on a weekly basis. Information is released to end users by using a web-GIS tool, developed in an
open-source software environment and implemented in three different areas. The structure of the
web-GIS has been adapted to each area considering the requirements of the local users. The IRRISAT
approach has proven that economic benefits generated by such advisory services are able to fully repay
the initial investments, creating advantages for the environment and opportunities for all of the users of
water resources. Accordingly, IRRISAT has been deemed a “best practice” for agricultural applications
by EURISY (Non-Profit-Organization aiming to promoting the benefits of Space to European Society,
see http://www.eurisy.org/good-practice-campania-encouraging-the-sustainable-use-of-irrigation-
water-in-the-region_85) and by the International Selection Committee of the call for “Best Sustainable
Practices on Food Security” for EXPO 2015 in Milan (Italy). In the specific context of Consorzio
of Sannio Alifano, Campania Region, the overall results in terms of cost-benefit analysis, obtained
comparing the 2012 irrigation season (pre-IRRISAT) and 2013 (post-IRRISAT), demonstrate water
savings of about 18%, while a survey on a sample of monitored farms highlights peak savings of about
25%–30% without loss of production [144].
An approach using satellite data, mobile phones and web-GIS tools for information delivery is
the IrriSatSMS system (Irrigation Water Management by Satellite and SMS) developed in Australia
by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation). The system is based
on the NDVI-Kcb relationship [123] and was originally applied for vineyards in the Murrumbidgee
Irrigation Area, but the current geographic area covers the entire Australian continent. The IrriSatSMS
system aims to simplify input data collection requirements and reduce both the costs and complexity
of information output [145]. The core of the system was initially a server that acted as a data collection
portal for various data feeds and a processing engine to convert these data into usable irrigation
management information. The most recent version makes use of the Google Earth Engine for the
image processing and algorithm implementation. Originally, the system relied mainly on a Short
Messaging Service (SMS) interface to communicate with irrigators directly on their mobile phones and
later development included a web-interface (https://irrisat-cloud.appspot.com/). The web interface is
easily accessible; the target fields can be defined (drawn) by the user; and the information contained in
the system is well presented and easily reached. Some information about the crop type, management,
growing cycle and soil properties is required in order to complete the water balance.
In the framework of the NASA Terrestrial Observation and Prediction System (TOPS) [146],
an application for near-real-time mapping of crop canopy conditions and associated CWR at the
resolution of individual fields has been developed. The TOPS Satellite Irrigation Management Support
(TOPS-SIMS) integrates satellite observations from Landsat and MODIS with ETo from meteorological
information and ancillary data on crop type and site-specific conditions. The initial implementation
provides a capability for mapping fractional cover, associated basal crop coefficients, and ET over
3.7 million ha of farmland in California’s Central Valley. A generalized NDVI-Kcb relationship is used
for near-real-time mapping Kcb and ET. Refinements introducing crop-specific NDVI-Kcb relationships
are introduced a posteriori when this knowledge is available [125]. A web-based user interface provides
access to visualizations of TOPS-SIMS (https://ecocast.arc.nasa.gov/simsi/). The variable and date
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 14 of 25

is able to display time series of raster and vector maps, adding the capability to also display14time
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 of 25
trajectories of pixel-based values for the periods defined by the user. The main layers displayed by
the systems are ETo maps, color composition RGB, NDVI, Kcb and CWR values, 24 hours after image
visualized
delivery in can be selected, of
the web-portals and the data
Landsat associated
8 and Sentinel with
2A bythe plotand
USGS analyzed can berespectively.
Copernicus, downloadedThe in
numerical and graphical formats.
image processing is off-line, and a normalization process allows the operation of multiple image
In Southern
sources Spain, a first
as a multi-sensor experience
virtual was developed
constellation; see Figure in 3. 2005, by using
A mobile time series
app version of Landsat
of SPIDER web- 5
images to obtain
GIS (Agrisat App) Kcb
was curves based
released in on
2016NDVI
and temporal
is available evolution and displaying
in the most common digital them distribution
on SPIDER
(System
platforms offor
Participatory
mobile devices.Information, Decision support and Expert knowledge for irrigation River
basinAnwater management,
additional system http://maps.spiderwebgis.org/webgis),
with interesting applications in agriculture a web-GIS based on
is EEFlux open-source
(Earth Engine
software developed by the University of Castilla-La Mancha. SPIDER
Evapotranspiration Flux, accessible at http://eeflux-level1.appspot.com/). EEFlux operates on has evolved from a 2005
the
prototype,
Google Earth and Engine
it is currently
system providing
and hastimebeen series of Sentinel-2a
developed by theand Landsat 8 of
consortium imagery and derived
the University of
products for the whole Iberian Peninsula, covering 2 ). SPIDER
Nebraska-Lincoln, Desert Research Institute andSpain and Portugal
University of Idaho(around
with600,000
funding kmsupport by
is able toThe
Google. display
system time series ET
provides of raster and vector
and reference maps, adding
ET estimates basedthe capability
on the METRIC tomodel
also display time
[69] applied
trajectories of pixel-based
to Landsat images aroundvalues for the
the globe. periods
EEFlux defined by
is calibrated bythe user. The
assigning mainto
values layers displayed
the ratio betweenby
the systems
actual ET and arereference
ETo maps, ETcolor composition
for the “hot” andRGB, NDVI,
“cold” partsKcb and CWR
(pixels values,
or group 24 hours
of pixels) of after image
the surface
delivery in the
temperature web-portals
spectrum of theof scene
Landsat 8 and
[147]. Sentinel
EEFlux 2A by
differs fromUSGS
the and Copernicus,
previous systemsrespectively.
analyzed inThe the
image
nature processing is off-line,
of the ET estimates thatand a normalization
EEFlux provides. Thisprocess
systemallows
could be the operation of multiple
complementary image
to the previous
sources
models as a multi-sensor
in the determination virtual constellation;
of the water stress,see Figure
since it is3.based
A mobile
on theapp version of
estimation of SPIDER
the actual web-GIS
values
(Agrisat App) was released
of ET, accounting for the in 2016 and
water is available
stress conditions. in the
Themost commoncalibration
automated digital distribution
in EEFlux platforms
is still
for mobilebut
evolving, devices.
EEFlux shows promising perspectives to reach actual ET.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Scheme
Scheme ofof the modular system
the modular system based
based on the integration
on the integration ofof remote
remote sensing
sensing and
and weather
weather
observations into
observations intoaaweb-GIS,
web-GIS,totoprovide
provideusers
userswith
withirrigation
irrigationscheduling,
scheduling, matching
matching thethe water
water supply
supply to
to crop water demands. CWR, crop water requirements; IWR, irrigation water requirements.
crop water demands. CWR, crop water requirements; IWR, irrigation water requirements.

3.3. Comparison of the Decision Support Systems Based on Web-GIS Technology

An additional system with interesting applications in agriculture is EEFlux (Earth Engine
Table 2 shows the
Evapotranspiration main
Flux, characteristics
accessible of the web-GIS-based decision support
at http://eeflux-level1.appspot.com/). systems
EEFlux analyzed
operates on
in the text. The development of these operational systems for the assessment
the Google Earth Engine system and has been developed by the consortium of the University of of water management
confirms the maturity
Nebraska-Lincoln, Desertand the applicability
Research Institute andofUniversity
the methodologies
of Idaho withreviewed
fundingin this paper.
support The
by Google.
advantages
The and improvements
system provides over ET
ET and reference traditional
estimatesirrigation
based on advisory
the METRIC services,
modelbased on field
[69] applied to
measurements
Landsat imagesand Kc-tabulated
around the globe.values,
EEFluxare the capability
is calibrated of the satellite-based
by assigning values to the system to reflect
ratio between the
actual
actual
ET andconditions
reference ETof for
thethe
canopy,
“hot” covering
and “cold” large
partsareas andorincreasing
(pixels the efficiency
group of pixels) of field
of the surface work.
temperature
The basic
spectrum of theinformation
scene [147].provided by each
EEFlux differs system
from is similar:systems
the previous vegetation indices,
analyzed in color composites
the nature of the
andestimates
ET core biophysical parameters
that EEFlux derived
provides. from satellite
This system could bedata and related with
complementary water use,models
to the previous like crop
in
coefficients.
the All of of
determination thethe
systems
water take into
stress, account
since the necessity
it is based of spatio-temporal
on the estimation analysis,
of the actual values and
of the
ET,
user can visualize
accounting the images
for the water and query The
stress conditions. the information for different
automated calibration dates or
in EEFlux timeevolving,
is still periods. but
An
interesting
EEFlux option
shows in all systems
promising is the capability
perspectives to reach actualto display
ET. the location of the user or web-connected
device in the maps. This geolocation, with the reference of the most recent satellite images, can be
used to identify areas of interest in the field, like zones with unusual crop development. An
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 15 of 25

3.3. Comparison of the Decision Support Systems Based on Web-GIS Technology

Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the web-GIS-based decision support systems
analyzed in the text. The development of these operational systems for the assessment of water
management confirms the maturity and the applicability of the methodologies reviewed in this
paper. The advantages and improvements over traditional irrigation advisory services, based on field
measurements and Kc-tabulated values, are the capability of the satellite-based system to reflect the
actual conditions of the canopy, covering large areas and increasing the efficiency of field work.

Table 2. Relevant aspects of the web-GIS-based decision support systems analyzed in the text. IRRISAT,
Irrigation assisted by Satellite; TOP-SIMS, Terrestrial Observation and Prediction System Terrestrial
Observation and Prediction System; IrriSat-SMS, Irrigation Water Management by Satellite and SMS;
SPIDER, System of Participatory Information, Decision support and Expert knowledge for irrigation
River basin water management; EEFlux, Earth Engine Evapotranspiration Flux.

IRRISAT TOP-SIMS IrriSat-SMS SPIDER EEFlux

User and Accessible with User and
Accessibility Open Open
password Gmail account password
Google Google Google Google Google
Base maps Satellite/Open Satellite/Google Satellite/Google Maps/Open Maps/Open
street maps Terrain Terrain street map street maps
24 h after Automatic after 24 h after
Processing time - -
delivery delivery delivery
RS-based
RS-PM Kcb-VI Kcb-VI Kcb-VI METRIC
approach
Most Maps of Maps of Kcb Actual ET,
Water balance Maps of Kcb,
elaborated irrigated areas, and crop accounting for
components ETo and CWR
product LAI, CWR transpiration water stress
Campania Global, ETo Pilot areas,
Region (Italy); available for 400,000 km2 for
Coverage California Global
Bookpournong the east of the largest
(Australia) Australia project.
Period covered 2007–2016 2010–2016 2014–2016 2013–2016 -
Dedicated App No No No Yes No

The basic information provided by each system is similar: vegetation indices, color composites
and core biophysical parameters derived from satellite data and related with the water use, like crop
coefficients. All of the systems take into account the necessity of spatio-temporal analysis, and the user
can visualize the images and query the information for different dates or time periods. An interesting
option in all systems is the capability to display the location of the user or web-connected device in the
maps. This geolocation, with the reference of the most recent satellite images, can be used to identify
areas of interest in the field, like zones with unusual crop development. An additional point of general
agreement is that weekly is the best compromise of timing for using and receiving the information
about plant status and CWR.
The information provided and the calculation procedure varies between the systems analyzed.
IrriSatSMS has powerful processing capabilities because it is able to calculate, on-the-fly, a soil
water balance for the user-drawn polygon. The system is able to estimate and update the actual
NIWR and soil water content based on the information provided by the end user. In comparison,
EEFlux is able to estimate actual ET for the analyzed area, but without additional knowledge
requirements. The information about NIWR and other components of the satellite-based soil water
balance can be displayed in other web-GIS tools, like SPIDER or IRRISAT, but must be processed
off-line. An example of the implementation of an RS-based soil water balance for the whole
Iberian Peninsula at the pixel scale in irrigated areas can be seen in the SPIDER group named
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 16 of 25

SPIDER-CENTER (http://maps.spiderwebgis.org/login/?custom=spider-center). This project is

funded by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture (for further information and accessibility, the reader
is referred to http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/centro-nacional-tecnologia-
regadios/nuevas-aplicaciones-tecnologicas/).
This difference in the processing capabilities also implies a substantial difference in the data and
knowledge requirements. While SPIDER or IRRISAT can display the results of the models based on
land use and soil properties maps, IrriSatSMS makes use of the knowledge of the end user in terms of
soil properties, crop, planting dates and management. An additional difference between the various
systems is the accessibility to pixel- or plot-based information. IRRISAT, EO4Water and IRRiEYE
provide information at the pixel and plot scale. IrriSatSMS emphasizes the plot scale. SPIDER and
TOP-SIMS allow the direct comparison of multiple pixels or small grids. SPIDER provides a dynamic
multiple parameter chart with the temporal evolution of the selected parameters for different locations.
This capability opens the possibility to show and compare the spatial distribution of the CWR or
related variables and may be of interest for the analysis of crop uniformity. Although irrigation and
other tasks are currently planned and performed for the whole plot, new machinery for variable rate
irrigation is becoming available. The accurate generation of spatial irrigation recommendation, as
is the case of NIWR maps at the pixel scale based on RS, is essential for the implementation and
evaluation of variable irrigation ratio technologies [148].
Additional conclusions can be extracted if the methodology is analyzed from the perspective
of the end user. The farmers willing to adopt these techniques are familiar with point soil water
content sensors in such a way that they are able to check with their own knowledge the reliability
of RS recommendations, comparing them with other sources of water requirement estimation. For
this reason, easy access to timely information is crucial. Direct access by farmers in real time to the
images in the way of the usual RGB color combination is very useful. These RGB/NDVI images enable
farmers to gain confidence in identifying some details in the images that they have observed directly
in their fields, such as sprinkler failure and non-uniform water distribution effects. In addition, the
temporal evolution of the spectral vegetation indices or related parameters obtained during several
growing seasons helps to compare the effects of management strategies (i.e., planting dates, fertilization
strategies or the performance of different varieties). An interesting complement is the identification of
phenological stages based on the temporal evolution of crop reflectance. Regarding our knowledge,
no operational systems are providing this kind of information directly to the farmers. However, it is
necessary to highlight the advances already achieved in this field [149,150] and the necessity of this
information for the scheduling of agricultural tasks.

3.4. Predicting CWR a Week Ahead

Providing advice about CWR in operative scenarios, one week ahead seems to be a reasonable
expectation, providing enough time and ensuring the accuracy of the CWR forecast. The relevance
of this predictive product was already highlighted by [4] and clearly recognized by the traditional
irrigation advisory services, but the remote sensing community was primarily interested in the accuracy
of RS-based ET estimates. The prediction of CWR one week ahead allows for planning irrigation
scheduling adapted to the power supply rates, water availability, irrigation systems, precipitation
probability and farmer´s availability.
Predicting CWR one week ahead requires the extrapolation of the Kc-Kcb data and weather
forecasts for ETo prediction. CWR forecast is a logical step in the reflectance-based Kcb models [35,125],
although some of the operational systems, like TOPS-SIMS, still do not incorporate this product.
A prediction of CWR is fully operative in IrriSatSMS and is under development for the IRRISAT,
EO4Water and IRRiEYE systems based on LAI-VI relationships [151]. A commercial development of the
CWR prediction based on Kcb-VI relationships has been developed in Spain (http://www.agrisat.es).
The initial approach is based on a generalized Kcb-VI relationship following previous approaches
discussed in this paper [123,125].
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 17 of 25

Considering that ETo can be estimated from common meteorological data, ET can be calculated
from short-term numerical weather forecast. Two complementary methods with different spatial
scopes and accuracy have been introduced. The first one is to use the full power of numeric weather
forecast to determine the variables required to compute ETo according to the FAO-56 formulation.
The second one is based in daily temperature forecasting by using it as the input into the Hargreaves
and Samani equation to estimate ETo [6]. The latter method should be restricted to areas where
the Hargreaves and Samani equation works well (no windy areas, no coastal areas) and where no
forecasting of other meteorological variables than temperature is available. An inter-comparison
analysis has been recently published considering ensemble forecast models up to five days and a
spatial resolution of 7 km [152]; this study, based on COSMO-LEPS data (Limited-Area Ensemble
Prediction System provided by the European Consortium for local-Scale MOdelling), has evidenced
the robustness and reliability of ETo forecasts with the PM equation.
Computing ETo according to FAO-56 from weekly numeric weather forecast is the preferred
option. Maps of weekly predicted ETo are routinely provided by the Spanish Meteorological Agency,
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 17 of 25
AEMET (Agencia Estatal de Meteorología). The prediction is based on the High Resolution Limited
Area
AreaModel
Model (HIRLAM)
(HIRLAM) and
andthe
theEuropean
European Center
Center for
forMedium-range
Medium-rangeWeather WeatherForecasting
Forecasting(ECWMF)
(ECWMF)
models. The spatial scope of this product is the Iberian Peninsula, as presented
models. The spatial scope of this product is the Iberian Peninsula, as presented in Figure 4, in Figure 4, and
andthethe
spatial resolution of the raster map is a pixel size of 5 km. The ETo predictions are routinely
spatial resolution of the raster map is a pixel size of 5 km. The ETo predictions are routinely compared compared
with
withthe weekly
the weekly measured
measuredETo ETo maps
maps provided
provided bybythe same
the same agency
agencyand andETo
ETovalues
valuesobtained
obtained from
from
ground stations (www.siar.es). Finally, the adequate estimation of CWR requires
ground stations (www.siar.es). Finally, the adequate estimation of CWR requires the extrapolation the extrapolation ofof
reflectance-based
reflectance-basedKcb, Kcb,ororrelated
relatedvariables,
variables, like LAI
like LAI and
and hchc
forfor
RS-PM
RS-PM methods.
methods.This
Thisextrapolation
extrapolation
takes advantage of the smooth shape of the Kcb curves derived from
takes advantage of the smooth shape of the Kcb curves derived from time trajectories of time trajectories of NDVI
NDVI (see
(see
Figure
Figure 2). Therefore, the time trajectory of the Kcb and LAI or related parameters is suitable tobebe
2). Therefore, the time trajectory of the Kcb and LAI or related parameters is suitable to
extrapolated
extrapolated using
usingprevious
previousdates
datesforfor
short
shortperiods,
periods,asas
is is
thethe
case
caseof of
one week.
one week.

Figure 4. Weekly reference evapotranspiration ETo forecasting provided by Agencia Estatal de

Figure 4. Weekly reference evapotranspiration ETo forecasting provided by Agencia Estatal de
Meteorología (AEMET) displayed by the system SPIDER web-GIS.
Meteorología (AEMET) displayed by the system SPIDER web-GIS.

4. Conclusions and Perspectives

The experiences gathered during the past 30 years support the operational use of irrigation
scheduling based on spectral inputs. Currently, the operational use of dense time series of
multispectral imagery at high spatial resolution allows monitoring of crop biophysical parameters
related with crop water use during the growing season with unprecedented temporal and spatial
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 18 of 25

4. Conclusions and Perspectives

The experiences gathered during the past 30 years support the operational use of irrigation
scheduling based on spectral inputs. Currently, the operational use of dense time series of multispectral
imagery at high spatial resolution allows monitoring of crop biophysical parameters related with
crop water use during the growing season with unprecedented temporal and spatial resolution.
This information is needed and highly appreciated by the end users, such as professional farmers
or decision-makers, but several steps are necessary prior to introducing this information into the
day-to-day routine of irrigation farming. The information about crop water requirements must be
provided with sufficient future prediction, and one week ahead seems to be a reasonable lead time.
In addition, the end users require access to this information and to the time series of images in an
easy-to-use way and in near real time. This information can be provided by using the improvements
achieved in web-GIS methodologies and further developments, like mobile apps. The advancements
in crop ET assessment, the accessibility to satellite images and the availability of accurate forecasting
of meteorological data allow for precise predictions of crop water requirements.

Acknowledgments: This research was developed in the framework of the project FATIMA (FArming Tools for
external nutrient Inputs and water MAnagement), funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation program (Grant Agreement No. 633945).
Author Contributions: Alfonso Calera led the conception, design and writing of the manuscript; Isidro Campos
contributed to the writing and citations management; Anna Osann, Guido D’Urso and Massimo Menenti
contributed with their knowledge and experience about the models and systems analyzed and contributed
to the writing.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Animal Production and Health Division. Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture; FAO:
Rome, Italy, 2014.
2. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive
production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Garnett, T.; Appleby, M.C.; Balmford, A.; Bateman, I.J.; Benton, T.G.; Bloomer, P.; Burlingame, B.; Dawkins, M.;
Dolan, L.; Fraser, D.; et al. Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies. Sci. Mag. 2013,
341, 33–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Jensen, M.E.; Burman, R.D.; Allen, R.G. Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 1990; Volume 1.
5. Doorenbos, J.; Pruitt, W.O. Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water Requierements; FAO Irridation and Drainage
Paper No. 24; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1977.
6. Allen, R.G.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Requirements; FAO
Irridation and Drainage Paper No. 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998.
7. Doorenbos, J.; Kassam, A.H. Yield Response to Water; FAO Irridation and Drainage Paper No. 33; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 1979.
8. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E.; Raes, D. Crop Yield Response to Water; FAO Irridation and Drainage Paper
No. 66; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012.
9. Bastiaanssen, W.; Allen, R.G.; Droogers, P.; D’Urso, G.; Steduto, P. Twenty-five years modelng irrigated and
drained soils: State of the art. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 92, 111–125. [CrossRef]
10. Pinter, P.; Ritchie, J.; Hatfield, J.; Hart, G. The Agricultural Research Service’s remote sensing program:
An example of interagency collaboration. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2003, 69, 615–618. [CrossRef]
11. Jackson, R. Remote Sensing of Vegetation Characteristics for Farm Management. Proc. SPIE 1984, 0475,
81–96.
12. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Howell, T.A.; Jensen, M.E. Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors
governing measurement accuracy. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 899–920. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 19 of 25

13. D’Urso, G.; Richter, K.; Calera, A.; Osann, M.A.; Escadafal, R.; Garatuza-Pajan, J.; Hanich, L.; Perdigão, A.;
Tapia, J.B.; Vuolo, F. Earth Observation products for operational irrigation management in the context of the
PLEIADeS project. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 98, 271–282. [CrossRef]
14. D’Urso, G. Current Status and Perspectives for the Estimation of Crop Water Requirements from Earth
Observation. Ital. J. Agron. 2010, 5, 107–120. [CrossRef]
15. Shuttelworth, W. Evaporation models in hydrology. In Land Surface Evaporation Measurement and
Parameterization; Schmugge, T.J., André, J.-C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 93–120.
16. Monteith, J.L.; Unsworth, M. Principles of Environmental Physics; Academic Press: Burlington, VT, USA, 1990.
17. Jensen, M.E.; Robb, D.C.N.; Franzoy, C.E. Scheduling irrigations using climate-crop-soil data. J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 1970, 96, 25–38.
18. Wright, J.L. New Evapotranspiration Crop Coefficients. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 1982, 108, 57–74.
19. Kanemasu, E.T. Seasonal canopy reflectance patterns of wheat, sorghum, and soybean. Remote Sens. Environ.
1974, 3, 43–47. [CrossRef]
20. Tucker, C.J.; Elgin, H.J., Jr.; McMurtrey, J.E.I.; Fran, C.J. Monitoring corn and soybean crop development with
hand-held radiometer spectral data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1979, 8, 237–248. [CrossRef]
21. Pinter, P.; Hatfield, J.L.; Schepers, J.S.; Barnes, E.M.; Moran, M.S.; Daughtry, C.S.T.; Upchurch, D.R. Remote
sensing for crop management. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2003, 69, 647–664. [CrossRef]
22. Jackson, R.D.; Idso, S.B.; Regionato, R.J.; Pinter, P.J., Jr. Remotely sensed crop temperatures and reflectances
as inputs to irrigation scheduling. In Proceedings of the Irrigation and Drainage Special Conference (ASCE),
Boise, NY, USA, 23–25 July 1980; pp. 390–397.
23. Bausch, W.C.; Neale, C.M.U. Crop coefficients derived from reflected canopy radiation—A concept.
Trans. ASAE 1987, 30, 703–709. [CrossRef]
24. Neale, C.; Bausch, W.; Heerman, D. Development of reflectance-based crop coefficients for corn. Trans. ASAE
1989, 32, 1891–1899. [CrossRef]
25. Heilman, J.L.; Heilman, W.E.; Moore, D.G. Evaluating the crop coefficient using spectral relfectance. Agron. J.
1982, 74, 967–971. [CrossRef]
26. Asrar, G.; Myneni, R.B.; Choundhury, B.J. Spatial heterogeneity in vegetation canopies and remote sensing
of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation: A modelling study. Remote Sens. Environ. 1992, 41, 85–103.
[CrossRef]
27. Baret, F.; Guyot, G. Potentials and limits of vegetation indices for LAI and APAR assessment. Remote Sens.
Environ. 1991, 35, 161–173. [CrossRef]
28. Pinter, P.J. Solar angle independence in the relationship between absorbed PAR and remotely sensed data for
alfalfa. Remote Sens. Environ. 1993, 46, 19–25. [CrossRef]
29. Sellers, P.J.; Berry, J.A.; Collatz, G.J.; Field, C.B.; Hall, F.G. Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis, and
transpiration. III. A reanalysis using improved leaf models and a new canopy integration scheme.
Remote Sens. Environ. 1992, 42, 187–216. [CrossRef]
30. Choudhury, B.J.; Ahmed, N.U.; Idso, S.B.; Reginato, R.J.; Daughtry, C.S. Relations between evaporation
coefficients and vegetation indices studied by model simulations. Remote Sens. Environ. 1994, 50, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
31. Duchemin, B.; Hadria, R.; Er-Raki, S.; Boulet, G.; Maisongrande, P.; Chehbouni, A.; Escadafal, R.; Ezzahar, J.;
Hoedjes, J.C.B.; Kharrou, M.H.; et al. Monitoring wheat phenology and irrigation in central Morocco: On the
use of relationships between evapotranspiration, crop coefficients, leaf area index and remotely-sensed
vegetation indices. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 79, 1–27. [CrossRef]
32. Jayanthi, H.; Neale, C.M.U.; Wright, J.L. Development and validation of canopy reflectance-based crop
coefficient for potato. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 88, 235–246. [CrossRef]
33. Hunsaker, D.J.; Barnes, E.M.; Clarke, T.R.; Fitzgerald, G.J.; Pinter, P.J., Jr. Cotton irrigation scheduling using
remotely sensed and FAO-56 basal crop coefficients. Trans. ASAE 2005, 48, 1395–1407. [CrossRef]
34. González-Dugo, M.P.; Mateos, L. Spectral vegetation indices for benchmarking water productivity of
irrigated cotton and sugarbeet crops. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 48–58. [CrossRef]
35. Johnson, L.F.; Trout, T.J. Satellite NDVI assisted monitoring of vegetable crop evapotranspiration in
California’s San Joaquin Valley. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 439–455. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 20 of 25

36. Samani, Z.; Bawazir, A.S.; Bleiweiss, M.; Skaggs, R.; Longworth, J.; Tran, V.D.; Pinon, A. Using remote
sensing to evaluate the spatial variability of evapotranspiration and crop coefficient in the lower Rio Grande
Valley, New Mexico. Irrig. Sci. 2009, 28, 93–100. [CrossRef]
37. Campos, I.; Neale, C.M.U.; Calera, A.; Balbontin, C.; González-Piqueras, J. Assesing satellite-based basal
crop coefficients for irrigated grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 98, 45–54. [CrossRef]
38. Er-Raki, S.; Rodriguez, J.C.; Garatuza-Payan, J.; Watts, C.J.; Chehbouni, A. Determination of crop
evapotranspiration of table grapes in a semi-arid region of Northwest Mexico using multi-spectral vegetation
index. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 122, 12–19. [CrossRef]
39. Odi-Lara, M.; Campos, I.; Neale, C.M.U.; Ortega-Farias, S.; Poblete-Echeverria, C.; Balbontin, C.; Calera, A.
Estimating evapotranspiration of an apple orchard using a remote sensing-based soil water balance.
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 253. [CrossRef]
40. Nagler, P.L.; Morino, K.; Murray, R.; Osterberg, J.; Glenn, E.P. An empirical algorithm for estimating
agricultural and riparian evapotranspiration using MODIS Enhanced Vegetation Index and ground ground
measurements of ET. I. Descpription of method. Remote Sens. 2009, 1, 1273–1279. [CrossRef]
41. Groeneveld, D.P.; Baugh, W.M.; Sanderson, J.S.; Cooper, D.J. Annual groundwater evapotranspiration
mapped from single satellite scenes. J. Hydrol. 2007, 344, 146–156. [CrossRef]
42. Tasumi, M.; Allen, R.G.; Trezza, R. Calibrating satellite-based vegetation indices to estimate
evapotranspiration and crop coefficients. In Proceedings of the USCID Water Management Conference,
Boise, ID, USA, 25–28 October 2006.
43. Rafn, E.B.; Contor, B.; Ames, D.P. Evaluation of a Method for Estimating Irrigated Crop-Evapotranspiration
Coefficients from Remotely Sensed Data in Idaho. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2008, 134, 722–729. [CrossRef]
44. Singh, R.K.; Irmak, A. Estimation of Crop Coefficients Using Satellite Remote Sensing. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
2009, 135, 597–608. [CrossRef]
45. D’Urso, G.; Menenti, M.; Santini, A. Regional application of one-dimensional water flow models for irrigation
management. Agric. Water Manag. 1999, 40, 291–302. [CrossRef]
46. Myneni, R.B. Estimation of global leaf area index and absorbed par using radiative transfer models.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1997, 35, 1380–1393. [CrossRef]
47. Shi, H.; Xiao, Z.; Liang, S.; Zhang, X. Consistent estimation of multiple parameters from MODIS top of
atmosphere reflectance data using a coupled soil-canopy-atmosphere radiative transfer model. Remote Sens.
Environ. 2016, 184, 40–57. [CrossRef]
48. Mu, Q.Z.; Zhao, M.; Running, S.W. Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm.
Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 1781–1800. [CrossRef]
49. Mu, Q.; Heinsch, F.A.; Zhao, M.; Running, S.W. Development of a global evapotranspiration algorithm based
on MODIS and global meteorology data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 111, 519–536. [CrossRef]
50. Leuning, R.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Rajaud, A.; Cleugh, H.; Tu, K. A simple surface conductance model to estimate
regional evaporation using MODIS leaf area index and the Penman–Monteith equation. Water Resoures Res.
2008, 44, W10419. [CrossRef]
51. Zhang, K.; Kimball, J.S.; Mu, Q.Z.; Jones, L.A.; Goetz, S.J.; Running, S.W. Saltellite based analysis of northern
ET trends and associated changes in the regional water balance from 1983 to 2005. J. Hydrol. 2009, 379,
92–110. [CrossRef]
52. Zhang, Y.Q.; Chew, F.H. S.; Zhong, L.; Li, H.X. Use of remotely sensed actual evapotranspiration to improve
rainfall-runoff modeling in Southeast Australia. J. Hydrol. Meteorol. 2009, 10, 969–980. [CrossRef]
53. Zhang, Y.Q.; Chiew, F.H. S.; Zhang, L.; Leuning, R.; Cleugh, H.A. Estimating catchment evaporation and
runoff using MODIS leaf area index and the Penman–Monteith equation. Water Resoures Res. 2008, 44,
W10420. [CrossRef]
54. Azzali, S.; Menenti, M.; Meeuwissen, I.J.M.; Visser, T.N.M. Application of remote sensing techniques to
map crop coefficients in an Argentinian irrigation scheme. In Advances in Water Research; Tsakiris, G., Ed.;
Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 637–643.
55. Consoli, S.; D’Urso, G.; Toscano, A. Remote sensing to estimate ET-fluxes and the performance of an irrigation
distric in southern Italy. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 81, 295–314. [CrossRef]
56. Vanino, S.; Pulighe, G.; Nino, P.; De Michele, C.; Bolognesi, S.F.; D’Urso, G. Estimation of Evapotranspiration
and Crop Coefficients of Tendone Vineyards Using Multi-Sensor Remote Sensing Data in a Mediterranean
Environment. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 14708–14730. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 21 of 25

57. Cammalleri, C.; Ciraolo, G.; Minacapilli, M.; Rallo, G. Evapotranspiration from an Olive Orchard using
Remote Sensing-Based Dual Crop Coefficient Approach. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 4877–4895.
[CrossRef]
58. Vuolo, F.; D´Urso, G.; De Michele, C.; Bianchi, B.; Cutting, M. Satellite-based irrigation advisory services:
A common tool for different experiences from Europe to Australia. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 147, 82–95.
[CrossRef]
59. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M.; Menenti, M.; Feddes, R.A.; Holstlag, A.A.M. A remote sensing surface energy balance
algorithm for land (SEBAL). 1. Formulation. J. Hydrometeorol. 1998, 212-213, 198–212. [CrossRef]
60. Gillies, R.T.; Carlson, T.N.; Cui, J.; Kustas, W.P.; Humes, K.S. A verification of the “triangle” method
for obtaining surface soil water content and energy fluxes from remote measurements of the Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and surface radiant temperatures. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1997, 18, 3145–3166.
[CrossRef]
61. Kustas, W.P.; Norman, J.M. Use of remote sensing for evapotranspiration monitoring over land surfaces.
Hydrol. Sci. 1996, 41, 495–516. [CrossRef]
62. Moran, M.S.; Clarke, T.R.; Inoue, Y.; Vidal, A. Estimating crop water deficit using the relation between
surface-air temperature and spectral vegetation index. Remote Sens. Environ. 1994, 49, 246–263. [CrossRef]
63. Menenti, M. Understanding land surface evapotranspiration with satellite multispectral measurements.
Adv. Space Res. 1993, 13, 89–100. [CrossRef]
64. Norman, J.M.; Kustas, W.P.; Humes, K.S. A two-source approach for estimating soil and vegetation energy
fluxes in observations of directional radiometric surface temperature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1995, 77, 263–293.
[CrossRef]
65. Chehbouni, A.; Seen, D.L.; Njoku, E.G.; Monteney, B.M. Examination of difference between radiometric and
aerodynamic surface temperature over sparsely vegetated surfaces. Remote Sens. Environ. 1996, 58, 177–186.
[CrossRef]
66. Kustas, W.P.; Choudhury, B.J.; Moran, M.S.; Reginato, R.D.; Jackson, R.D.; Gay, L.W.; Weaver, H.L.
Determination of sensible heat flux over sparse canopy using thermal infrared data. Agric. For. Meteorol.
1989, 44, 197–216. [CrossRef]
67. Lhomme, J.P.; Monteny, B.; Amadou, M. Estimating sensible heat flux from radiometric temperature over
sparse millet. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1994, 68, 77–91. [CrossRef]
68. Mahrt, L.; Vickers, D. Bulk formulation of the surface heat flux. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 2004, 110, 357–379.
[CrossRef]
69. Allen, R.G.; Tasumi, M.; Trezza, R. Satellite-based energy balance for mapping evapotranspiration with
internalized calibration (METRIC)-Model. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2007, 133, 380–394. [CrossRef]
70. Menenti, M.; Bastiaanssen, W.; van Eick, D.; Abd el Karim, M.A. Linear relationships between surface
reflectance and temperature and their application to map actual evaporation of groundwater. Adv. Space Res.
1989, 9, 165–176. [CrossRef]
71. Su, Z. The Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) for estimation of turbulent heat fluxes. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2002, 6, 85–99. [CrossRef]
72. Shuttelworth, W.; Wallace, J. Evaporation from sparse crops: An energy combination theory. Q. J. R.
Meteorol. Soc. 1985, 111, 1143–1162. [CrossRef]
73. Anderson, M.C.; Norman, J.M.; Mecikalski, J.R.; Otkin, J.A.; Kustas, W.P. A climatological study of
evapotranspiration and moisture stress across the continental United States based on thermal remote
sensing: 1. Model formulation. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, D10117. [CrossRef]
74. Anderson, M.C.; Kustas, W.P.; Norman, J.M.; Hain, C.R.; Mecikalski, J.R.; Schultz, L.; González-Dugo, M.P.;
Cammalleri, C.; D’Urso, G.; Pimstein, A.; Gao, F. Mapping daily evapotranspiration at field to continental
scales using geostationary and polar orbiting satellite imagery. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 15, 223–239.
[CrossRef]
75. Menenti, M.; Choudhury, B.J. Parameterization of Land Surface Evaporation by Means of Location Dependent
Potential Evaporation and Surface Temperature Range; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1993.
76. Idso, S.B.; Jackson, R.D.; Pinter, P.J., Jr.; Reginato, R.J.; Hatfield, J.L. Normalizing the stress-degree-day
parameter for environmental variability. Agric. Meteorol. 1981, 24, 45–55. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 22 of 25

77. Chirouze, J.; Boulet, G.; Jarlan, L.; Fieuzal, R.; Rodriguez, J.C.; Ezzahar, J.; Er-Raki, S.; Bigeard, G.; Merlin, O.;
Garatuza-Payan, J.; et al. Intercomparison of four remote-sensing-based energy balance methods to retrieve
surface evapotranspiration and water stress of irrigated fields in semi-arid climate. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
2014, 18, 1165–1188. [CrossRef]
78. Palladino, M.; Staiano, A.; D’Urso, G.; Minacapilli, M.; Rallo, G. Mass and Surface Energy Balance Approaches
for Monitoring Water Stress in Vineyards. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2013, 19, 231–238. [CrossRef]
79. Gonzalez-Dugo, M.P.; Neale, C.M.U.; Mateos, L.; Kustas, W.P.; Prueger, J.H.; Anderson, M.C.; Li, F.
A comparison of operational remote sensing-based models for estimating crop evapotranspiration. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 2009, 149, 1843–1853. [CrossRef]
80. Rubio, E.; Colin, J.; D’Urso, G.; Trezza, R.; Allen, R.; Calera, A.; González, J.; Jochum, A.; Menenti, M.;
Tasumi, M.; et al. Golden day comparison of methods to retrieve et (Kc-NDVI, Kc-analytical, MSSEBS,
METRIC). AIP Conf. Proc. 2006, 852, 193–200.
81. Moran, M.S.; Inoue, Y.; Barnes, E.M. Opportunities and limitations for image-based remote sensing in
precision crop management. Remote Sens. Environ. 1997, 61, 319–346. [CrossRef]
82. Sandholt, I.; Rasmussen, K.; Andersen, J. A simple interpretation of the surface temperature/vegetation
index space for assessment of surface moisture status. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 79, 213–224. [CrossRef]
83. Alderfasi, A.A.; Nielsen, D.C. Use of crop water stress index for monitoring water status and scheduling
irrigation in wheat. Agric. Water Manag. 2001, 47, 69–75. [CrossRef]
84. Gontia, N.K.; Tiwari, K.N. Development of crop water stress index of wheat crop for scheduling irrigation
using infrared thermometry. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 1144–1152. [CrossRef]
85. Jones, H.G. Use of infrared thermometry for estimation of stomatal conductance as a possible aid to irrigation
scheduling. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1999, 95, 139–149. [CrossRef]
86. O’Shaughnessy, S.A.; Evett, S.R.; Colaizzi, P.D.; Howell, T.A. Using radiation thermography and thermometry
to evaluate crop water stress in soybean and cotton. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 1523–1535. [CrossRef]
87. Dobrowski, S.Z.; Pusknik, J.C.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Ustin, S.L. Simple reflectance indices track heat and water
stress induced changes in steady state chlorophyll fluorescence. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 97, 403–414.
[CrossRef]
88. Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; González-Dugo, V.; Berni, J.A.J. Fluorescence, temperature and narrow-band indices
acquired from a UAV platform for water stress detection using a micro-hyperspectral imager and a thermal
camera. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 117, 322–337. [CrossRef]
89. Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Berjón, A.; López-Lozano, R.; Miller, J.R.; Martín, P.; Cachorro, V.; González, M.R.;
de Frutos, A. Assessing vineyard condition with hyperspectral indices: Leaf and canopy reflectance
simulation in a row-structured discontinuous canopy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 99, 271–287. [CrossRef]
90. Sepulcre-Canto, G.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C.; Sobrino, J.A.; de Miguel, E.; Villalobos, F.J.
Detection of water stress in an olive orchard with thermal remote sensing imagery. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2006,
136, 31–44. [CrossRef]
91. Gao, B.C. NDWI—A normalized difference water index for remote sensing of vegetation liquid water from
space. Remote Sens. Environ. 1996, 58, 257–266. [CrossRef]
92. Neale, C.; Geli, H.; Kustas, W.; Alfieri, J.; Gowda, P.; Evett, S.; Prueger, J.; Hipps, L.; Dulaney, W.P.; Chávez, J.L.;
et al. Soil water content estimation using a remote sensing based hybrid evapotranspiration modeling
approach. Adv. Water Resour. 2012, 50, 152–161. [CrossRef]
93. Chen, F.; Mitchell, K.; Schaake, J.; Xue, Y.K.; Pan, H.L.; Koren, V.; Duan, Q.Y.; Ek, M.; Betts, A. Modeling of
land surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations. J. Geophys. Res. 1996, 101,
7251–7268. [CrossRef]
94. Wang-Erlandsson, L.; Bastiaanssen, W.G.M.; Gao, H.; Jägermeyr, J.; Senay, G.B.; van Dijk, A.I.J.M.;
Guerschman, J.P.; Keys, P.W.; Gordon, L.J.; Savenije, H.H.G. Global root zone storage capacity from
satellite-based evaporation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2016, 20, 1459–1481. [CrossRef]
95. Schuurmans, J.M.; Troch, P.A.; Veldhuizen, A.A.; Bastiaanssen, W.G.M.; Bierkens, M.F.P. Assimilation of
remotely sensed latent heat flux in a distributed hydrological model. Adv. Water Resour. 2003, 26, 151–159.
[CrossRef]
96. Sánchez, N.; Martínez-Fernández, J.; González-Piqueras, J.; González-Dugo, M.P.; Baroncini-Turrichia, G.;
Torres, E.; Calera, A.; Pérez-Gutiérrez, C. Water balance at plot scale for soil moisture estimation using
vegetation parameters. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2012, 166–167, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 23 of 25

97. Sánchez, N.; Martínez-Fernández, J.; Calera, A.; Torres, E.; Pérez-Gutiérrez, C. Combining remote sensing
and in situ soil moisture data for the application and validation of a distributed water balance model
(HIDROMORE). Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 98, 69–78. [CrossRef]
98. Sánchez, N.; Martínez-Fernández, J.; Rodríguez-Ruiz, M.; Torres, E.; Calera, A. A simulation of soil water
content based on remote sensing in a semi-arid Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Spanish J. Agric. Res.
2012, 10, 521–531. [CrossRef]
99. Colaizzi, P.D.; Barnes, E.M.; Clarke, T.R.; Choi, C.Y.; Waller, P.M. Estimating soil moinsture under low
frequency surface irrigation using crop water stress index. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2003, 129, 27–35. [CrossRef]
100. Colaizzi, P.D.; Barnes, E.M.; Clarke, T.R.; Choi, C.Y.; Waller, P.M.; Haberland, J.; Kostrzewski, M. Water stress
detection under high frequency sprinkler irrigation with water deficit index. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2003, 129,
36–43. [CrossRef]
101. Crow, W.T.; Kustas, W.P.; Prueger, J.H. Monitoring root-zone soil moisture through the assimilation of a
thermal remote sensing-based soil moisture proxy into a water balance model. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008,
112, 1268–1281. [CrossRef]
102. Hain, C.R.; Mecikalski, J.R.; Anderson, M.C. Retrieval of an available water-based soil moisture proxy from
thermal infrared remote sensing. Part I: Methodology and validation. J. Hydrometeorol. 2009, 10, 665–683.
[CrossRef]
103. Campos, I.; Balbontin, C.; González-Piqueras, J.; González-Dugo, M.P.; Neale, C.; Calera, A. Combining
water balance model with evapotranspiration measurements to estimate total available water soil water in
irrigated and rain-fed vineyards. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 165, 141–152. [CrossRef]
104. Campos, I.; Gonzalez-Piqueras, J.; Carra, A.; Villodre, J.; Calera, A. Calibration of the soil water balance model
in terms of total available water in the root zone for a continuous estimation of surface evapotranspiration in
mediterranean dehesa. J. Hydrol. 2016, 534, 427–439. [CrossRef]
105. D’Urso, G. Simulation and Management of On-Demand Irrigation Systems: A Combined Agrohydrological and
Remote Sensing Approach; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2001.
106. Gago, J.; Douthe, C.; Coopman, R.E.; Gallego, P.P.; Ribas-Carbo, M.; Flexas, J.; Escalona, J.; Medrano, H. UAVs
challenge to assess water stress for sustainable agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 153, 9–19. [CrossRef]
107. Deery, D.; Jimenez-Berni, J.; Jones, H.; Sirault, X.; Furbank, R. Proximal Remote Sensing Buggies and Potential
Applications for Field-Based Phenotyping. Agronomy 2014, 4, 349–379. [CrossRef]
108. Shi, Y.; Thomasson, J.A.; Murray, S.C.; Pugh, N.A.; Rooney, W.L.; Shafian, S.; Rajan, N.; Rouze, G.;
Morgan, C.L.S.; Neely, H.L.; et al. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for High-Throughput Phenotyping and
Agronomic Research. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159781. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Gonzalez-Dugo, V.; Zarco-Tejada, P.; Nicolás, E.; Nortes, P.A.; Alarcón, J.J.; Intrigliolo, D.S.; Fereres, E. Using
high resolution UAV thermal imagery to assess the variability in the water status of five fruit tree species
within a commercial orchard. Precis. Agric. 2013, 14, 660–678. [CrossRef]
110. Calera, A.; González-Piqueras, J.; Melia, J. Monitoring barley and corn growth from remote sensing data at
field scale. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25, 97–109. [CrossRef]
111. Wiegand, C.L.; Richardson, A.J. Use of spectral vegetation indices to infer leaf area, evapotranspiration and
yield: I. Rationale. Agron. J. 1990, 82, 623–629. [CrossRef]
112. Bauer, M.E. Spectral inputs to crop identification and condition assessment. Proc. IEEE 1985, 73, 1071–1085.
[CrossRef]
113. Mateos, L.; González-Dugo, M.P.; Testi, L.; Villalobos, F.J. Monitoring evapotranspiration of irrigated crops
using crop coefficients derived from time series of satellite images. I. Method validation. Agric. Water Manag.
2013, 125, 81–91. [CrossRef]
114. Hunsaker, D.J.; Pinter, P.J.; Barnes, E.M.; Kimball, B.A. Estimating cotton evapotranspiration crop coefficients
with a multispectral vegetation index. Irrig. Sci. 2003, 22, 95–104. [CrossRef]
115. Torres, E.A.; Calera, A. Bare soil evaporation under high evaporation demand: A proposed modification to
the FAO-56 model. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2010, 55, 303–315. [CrossRef]
116. Martinez-Beltran, C.; Jochum, M.A.O.; Calera, A.; Melia, J. Multisensor comparison of NDVI for a semi-arid
environment in Spain. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 1355–1384. [CrossRef]
117. Moran, M.S.; Bryant, R.; Thome, K.; Ni, W.; Nouvellon, Y.; Gonzalez-Dugo, M.P.; Qi, J.; Clarke, T.R.
A refined empirical line approach for reflectance factor retrieval from Landsat-5 TM and Landsat-7 ETM+.
Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 78, 71–82. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 24 of 25

118. Danaher, T. An Empirical BRDF Correction for Landsat TM and ETM+ Imagery. In Proceedings of the 11th
Australasian Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 2–6 September 2002.
119. Fensholt, R.; Sandholt, I.; Rasmussen, M.S. Evaluation of MODIS LAI, fAPAR and the relation between
fAPAR and NDVI in a semi-arid environment using in situ measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 91,
490–507. [CrossRef]
120. Tardieu, F.; Simonneau, T. Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status
and evaporative demand: Modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. J. Exp. Bot. 1998, 49, 419–432.
[CrossRef]
121. Yamori, W.; Hikosaka, K.; Way, D.A. Temperature response of photosynthesis in C3, C4, and CAM plants:
Temperature acclimation and temperature adaptation. Photosynth. Res. 2014, 119, 101–117. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
122. Campos, I.; Villodre, J.; Carrara, A.; Calera, A. Remote sensing-based soil water balance to estimate
Mediterranean holm oak savanna (dehesa) evapotranspiration under water stress conditions. J. Hydrol. 2013,
494, 1–9. [CrossRef]
123. Hornbuckle, J. Final Report to Grape and Wine Research & Development Corporation; CSIRO: Canberra,
Australia, 2014.
124. Trout, T.J.; Johnson, L.F. Estimating crop water use from remotely sensed NDVI, Crop Models and Reference
ET. In USCID Fourth International Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, Proceedings of the Role of Irrigation
and Drainage in a Sustainable Future, Sacramento, CA, USA, 3–6 October 2007; USDA ARS: Beltsville, MD,
USA, 2007.
125. Melton, F.S.; Johnson, L.F.; Lund, C.P.; Pierce, L.L.; Michaelis, A.R.; Hiatt, S.H.; Guzman, A.; Adhikari, D.D.;
Purdy, A.J.; Rosevelt, C.; et al. Satellite irrigation management support with the terrestrial observation
and prediction system: A framework for integration of satellite and surface observations to support
improvements in agricultural water resource management. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens.
2012, 5, 1709–1721. [CrossRef]
126. Hunsaker, D.J.; Pinter, P.J., Jr.; Kimball, B.A. Wheat basal crop coefficients determined by normalized
difference vegetation index. Irrig. Sci. 2005, 22, 95–104. [CrossRef]
127. Bausch, W.C. Soil background effects on reflectance-based crop coefficients for corn. Remote Sens. Environ.
1993, 46, 213–222. [CrossRef]
128. Anderson, M.C.; Neale, C.M.U.; Li, F.; Norman, J.M.; Kustas, W.P.; Jayanthi, H.; Chavez, J. Upscaling ground
observations of vegetation water content, canopy height, and leaf area index during SMEX02 using aircraft
and Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 92, 447–464. [CrossRef]
129. Vuolo, F.; Neugebauer, N.; Bolognesi, S.F.; Atzberger, C.; D’Urso, G. Estimation of leaf area index using
DEIMOS-1 data: Application and transferability of a semi-empirical relationship between two agricultural
areas. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 1274–1291. [CrossRef]
130. Duveiller, G.; Weiss, M.; Baret, F.; Defourny, P. Retrieving wheat Green Area Index during the growing season
from optical time series measurements based on neural network radiative transfer inversion. Remote Sens.
Environ. 2011, 115, 887–896. [CrossRef]
131. Karatas, B.S.; Akkuzu, E.; Unal, H.B.; Asik, S.; Avci, M. Using satellite remote sensing to assess irrigation
performance in Water User Associations in the Lower Gediz Basin, Turkey. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 96,
982–990. [CrossRef]
132. Droogers, P.; Bastiaanssen, W. Irrigation Performance using Hydrological and Remote Sensing Modeling.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2002, 128, 11–18. [CrossRef]
133. Zwart, S.J.; Leclert, L.M.C. A remote sensing-based irrigation performance assessment: A case study of the
Office du Niger in Mali. Irrig. Sci. 2010, 28, 371–385. [CrossRef]
134. Ahmad, M.D.; Turral, H.; Nazeer, A. Diagnosing irrigation performance and water productivity through
satellite remote sensing and secondary data in a large irrigation system of Pakistan. Agric. Water Manag.
2009, 96, 551–564. [CrossRef]
135. Castaño, S.; Sanz, D.; Gómez-Alday, J. Remote Sensing and GIS Tools for the Groundwater Withdrawals
Quantification. J. Agric. Sci. Appl. 2012, 1, 33–36.
Sensors 2017, 17, 1104 25 of 25

136. Fisher, J.B.; Melton, F.; Middleton, E.; Hain, C.; Anderson, M.; Allen, R.; McCabe, M.F.; Hook, S.; Baldocchi, D.;
Townsend, P.A.; et al. The future of evapotranspiration: Global requirements for ecosystem functioning,
carbon and climate feedbacks, agricultural management, and water resources. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53.
[CrossRef]
137. Wulder, M.A.; White, J.C.; Loveland, T.R.; Woodcock, C.E.; Belward, A.S.; Cohen, W.B.; Fosnight, E.A.;
Shaw, J.; Masek, J.G.; Roy, D.P. The global Landsat archive: Status, consolidation, and direction.
Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 185, 271–283. [CrossRef]
138. Semmens, K.A.; Anderson, M.C.; Kustas, W.P.; Gao, F.; Alfieri, J.G.; McKee, L.; Prueger, J.H.; Hain, C.R.;
Cammalleri, C.; Yang, Y.; et al. Monitoring daily evapotranspiration over two California vineyards using
Landsat 8 in a multi-sensor data fusion approach. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 185, 155–170. [CrossRef]
139. Berni, J.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Suarez, L.; Fereres, E. Thermal and Narrowband Multispectral Remote Sensing
for Vegetation Monitoring From an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2009, 47,
722–738. [CrossRef]
140. Pôças, I.; Paço, T.A.; Paredes, P.; Cunha, M.; Pereira, L.S. Estimation of actual crop coefficients using remotely
sensed vegetation indices and soil water balance modelled data. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 2373–2400. [CrossRef]
141. Campos, I.; Neale, C.M.U.; Suyker, A.; Arkebauer, T.J.; Gonçalves, I. Reflectance-based crop coefficients
REDUX: For operational evapotranspiration estimates in the age of high producing hybrid varieties.
Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 187, 140–153. [CrossRef]
142. Merlin, O.; Rüdiger, C.; Al Bitar, A.; Richaume, P.; Walker, J.P.; Kerr, Y.H. Disaggregation of SMOS soil
moisture in Southeastern Australia. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2012, 50, 1556–1571. [CrossRef]
143. Sánchez, N.; Martínez-Fernánadez, J.; Scaini, A.; Pérez-Gutierrez, C. Validation of the SMOS L2 soil moisture
data in the REMEDHUS network (Spain). IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2012, 50, 1602–1611. [CrossRef]
144. IRRISAT: Irrigation Supported by Satellite. Available online: https://www.feedingknowledge.net/02-
search/-/bsdp/5592/en_GB?controlPanelCategory=portlet_1_WAR_feeding_knowledgeportlet (accessed
on 10 May 2017).
145. Hornbuckle, J.; Car, N.; Christen, E.; Stein, T.-M.; Williamson, B. Irrigation Water Management by Satellite and
SMS—A Utilisation Framework: CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 01/09, CSIRO Land and Water
Science Report No. 04/09; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2009.
146. Nemani, R.; Hashimoto, H.; Votava, P.; Melton, F.; Wang, W.; Michaelis, A.; Mutch, L.; Milesi, C.; Hiatt, S.;
White, M. Monitoring and forecasting ecosystem dynamics using the Terrestrial Observation and Prediction
System (TOPS). Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 1497–1509. [CrossRef]
147. Allen, R.G.; Morton, C.; Kamble, B.; Kilic, A.; Huntington, J.; Thau, D.; Gorelick, N.; Erickson, T.; Moore, R.;
Trezza, R.; et al. EEFlux: A Landsat-based Evapotranspiration mapping tool on the Google Earth Engine.
In 2015 ASABE/IA Irrigation Symposium: Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Irrigation—A Tribute to the Career
of Terry Howell, Sr. Conference Proceedings; ASABE: Joseph, MI, USA, 2015; pp. 1–11.
148. Barker, J.B.; Neale, C.M.U.; Heeren, D.M. Evaluation of a hybrid remote sensing evapotranspiration model
for variable rate irrigation management. In Proceedings of the 2015 ASABE/IA Irrigation Symposium:
Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Irrigation, Long Beach, CA, USA, 10–12 November 2015.
149. Studer, S.; Stöckli, R.; Appenzeller, C.; Vidale, P.L. A comparative study of satellite and ground-based
phenology. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2007, 51, 405–414. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
150. Reed, B.C.; Schwartz, M.D.; Xiao, X. Remote Sensing Phenology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009;
pp. 231–246.
151. De Michele, C. ARIESPACE SRL, Napoli, Italy. Personal communication, 2016.
152. Pelosi, A.; Medina, H.; Villani, P.; D’Urso, G.; Chirico, G. Probabilistic forecasting of reference
evapotranspiration with a limited area ensemble prediction system. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 178, 106–118.
[CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).