## 3 Results
### Evaporation and Transpiration Partitioning
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**E**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**E + T**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **PT** & **PM** & **PT** & **PM** & **PT** & **PM** \\ \hline R\({}^{2}\) & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.77 & 0.70 & 0.75 & 0.72 \\ \hline RMSE (mm/day) & 1.26 & 0.64 & 0.82 & 1.41 & 1.25 & 1.30 \\ \hline MBE (mm/day) & 0.88 & \(-\)0.23 & \(-\)0.07 & 1.02 & 0.80 & 0.79 \\ \hline MAE (mm/day) & 0.97 & 0.45 & 0.57 & 1.11 & 0.96 & 0.99 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Statistical metrics correlation coefficient (R\({}^{2}\)), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean bias error (MBE) for DisALEXI-PT (PT) and DisALEXI-PM (PM) partitioned evaporation (E), transpiration (T), and combined E and T compared to CEC-derived E and T and combined E and T for all sites. Figure 5: Scatter plots of DisALEXI-PT- **(top)** and DisALEXI-PM **(bottom)**-derived E, T, and ET (y-axis) versus CEC E, T, and ET (x-axis) for all sites on clear Landsat overpass dates during 2021. Figure 7 shows a comparison between the DisALEXI-PT and DisALEXI-PM estimates of T\({}_{\rm c}\) (top left) and T\({}_{\rm s}\) (bottom left), as well as the major individual energy balance flux components, demonstrating how differences in T\({}_{\rm c}\) influence and propagate to differences in E and T between approaches. Note that energy balance component values are at Landsat overpass times and are given in units of W m\({}^{-2}\). Accordingly, E and T are presented as \(\lambda\)E\({}_{\rm s}\) and \(\lambda\)E\({}_{\rm c}\), respectively. Additionally included is the average difference between component values (PM minus PT). DisALEXI-PM produces T\({}_{\rm c}\) values that are 5.3 \({}^{\circ}\)C cooler, on average, than DisALEXI-PT estimates. Cooler T\({}_{\rm c}\) values result in T\({}_{\rm s}\) values that are 4.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C warmer, on average, than DisALEXI-PT estimates. Cooler T\({}_{\rm c}\) and warmer T\({}_{\rm s}\) DisALEXI-PM predictions propagate to an increase in R\({}_{\rm nc}\) (+15 W m\({}^{-2}\)) and a decrease in R\({}_{\rm ns}\) (\(-\)16 W m\({}^{-2}\)) when compared to estimates proposed by DisALEXI-PT (Figure 7). The canopy (H\({}_{\rm c}\)) and soil (H\({}_{\rm s}\)) sensible heat flux contributions show a change between \(-\)60 W m\({}^{-2}\) for H\({}_{\rm c}\) and +62 W m\({}^{-2}\) for  
Figure 6: Scatter plot comparison of T\({}_{\rm a}\) (x-axis; (**A**,**B**)) and DisALEXI T\({}_{\rm c}\) (y-axis) for DisALEXI-PT (**A**) and DisALEXI-PM (**B**), with color-scale indicating VPD values for all sites. Additionally included is a scatter plot of DisALEXI T\({}_{\rm c}\) (y-axis; (**C**)) and VPD (x-axis; (**C**)) for all sites. The blue and green dots represent DisALEXI-PM and DisALEXI-PT modeled values when T\({}_{\rm c}\) > T\({}_{\rm a}\), respectively. Red markers indicate when DisALEXI-PM T\({}_{\rm c}\) < T\({}_{\rm a}\). Figure 7: Scatter plot of DisALEXI-PM- (y-axis) versus DisALEXI-PT (x-axis)-produced canopy (**top row**) and soil (**bottom row**) components to the energy balance, including T\({}_{\rm c}\), T\({}_{\rm s}\), R\({}_{\rm nc}\), R\({}_{\rm ns}\), H\({}_{\rm c}\), H\({}_{\rm s}\), IE\({}_{\rm c}\), and IE\({}_{\rm s}\). \(\rm H_{s}\), with the values of \(\rm H_{c}\) highlighting the ability of DisALEXI-PM to capture negative H values. In combination, these differences lead to DisALEXI-PM canopy transpiration rates (\(\rm\lambda E_{c}\)) roughly 30% larger than those from DisALEXI-PT (+75 W m\({}^{-2}\)). The differences in soil evaporation (\(\rm\lambda E_{s}\)) are opposite in sign, with DisALEXI-PM yielding \(\rm\lambda E_{s}\) estimates that are -80% smaller (-76 W m\({}^{-2}\)) than the DisALEXI-PT estimates. Conversion to daily mass units for reference with previously discussed E and T estimates results in DisALEXI-PM producing 2.64 mm day\({}^{-1}\) more transpiration and 2.68 mm day\({}^{-1}\) less evaporation than DisALEXI-PT when averaged for all sites.