# Modelling High-Resolution Actual Evapotranspiration through Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-3 Data Fusion
## 3 Results
METRIC is very clearly performing better in woody crops, while ESVEP obtains better results for H in herbaceous crops and better results for \(\lambda E\) in woody crops. It is also worth noting that \(R_{n}\) and G showed larger relative errors in woody crops than in herbaceous crops, since woody canopies are more complex and therefore more difficult to capture by the models and/or parametrizations used [89; 90]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Land Cover** & **Model** & **N** & **Obs.** & **Bias** & **MAE** & **RMSE** & **rRMSE** & **r** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Rn} & \multirow{4}{*}{cropland} & METRIC & 222 & 441 & \(-\)4 & 27 & 38 & 0.086 & 0.955 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 222 & 441 & \(-\)10 & 32 & 42 & 0.096 & 0.950 \\  & & disTSEB & 200 & 450 & \(-\)6 & 29 & 37 & 0.081 & 0.962 \\  & & ESVEP & 218 & 444 & \(-\)22 & 37 & 49 & 0.111 & 0.942 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{4}{*}{grassland} & METRIC & 113 & 475 & \(-\)15 & 36 & 45 & 0.094 & 0.929 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 113 & 475 & \(-\)9 & 34 & 43 & 0.090 & 0.936 \\  & & disTSEB & 111 & 472 & \(-\)7 & 33 & 42 & 0.089 & 0.937 \\  & & ESVEP & 110 & 474 & \(-\)12 & 34 & 42 & 0.089 & 0.939 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{savarna} & METRIC & 153 & 425 & \(-\)15 & 62 & 69 & 0.163 & 0.815 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 153 & 425 & \(-\)23 & 72 & 79 & 0.187 & 0.763 \\  & & disTSEB & 152 & 424 & \(-\)17 & 60 & 68 & 0.159 & 0.830 \\  & & ESVEP & 153 & 425 & \(-\)36 & 69 & 80 & 0.189 & 0.790 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{forest} & METRIC & 17 & 511 & \(-\)5 & 20 & 27 & 0.053 & 0.994 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 17 & 511 & \(-\)1 & 18 & 24 & 0.047 & 0.995 \\  & & disTSEB & 17 & 511 & \(-\)1 & 18 & 24 & 0.047 & 0.995 \\  & & ESVEP & 15 & 486 & \(-\)6 & 17 & 24 & 0.049 & 0.996 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{G} & \multirow{4}{*}{cropland} & METRIC & 222 & 43 & 28 & 41 & 50 & 1.166 & 0.303 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 222 & 43 & 46 & 56 & 64 & 1.509 & 0.253 \\  & & disTSEB & 200 & 43 & 34 & 48 & 56 & 1.297 & 0.228 \\  & & ESVEP & 218 & 42 & 55 & 62 & 74 & 1.754 & 0.255 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{G} & \multirow{4}{*}{grassland} & METRIC & 113 & 144 & \(-\)66 & 68 & 75 & 0.518 & 0.799 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 113 & 144 & \(-\)43 & 49 & 60 & 0.419 & 0.677 \\  & & disTSEB & 111 & 143 & \(-\)46 & 50 & 61 & 0.429 & 0.710 \\  & & ESVEP & 110 & 147 & \(-\)42 & 49 & 59 & 0.403 & 0.647 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{savarna} & METRIC & 153 & 78 & 2 & 19 & 23 & 0.293 & 0.792 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 153 & 78 & 12 & 25 & 30 & 0.381 & 0.622 \\  & & disTSEB & 152 & 78 & \(-\)3 & 27 & 32 & 0.418 & 0.472 \\  & & ESVEP & 153 & 78 & 23 & 28 & 34 & 0.435 & 0.724 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{forest} & METRIC & 10 & \(-\)2 & 25 & 25 & 32 & 21.275 & 0.959 \\  & & TSEB-PT & 10 & \(-\)2 & 9 & 9 & 11 & 6.989 & 0.905 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & disTSEB & 10 & \(-\)2 & 8 & 8 & 9 & 6.083 & 0.770 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & ESVEP & 10 & \(-\)2 & 13 & 13 & 14 & 9.383 & 0.981 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._Finally, Table 7 lists the model performance depending on whether sites are under Mediterranean and semi-arid climate (i.e., water limited sites), or sites under temperate climate (i.e., energy limited sites). First of all it is worth noting that due to cloud coverage conditions, more valid cases are obtained over semi-arid conditions than in temperate areas. TSEB models showed similar range of errors in both climatic conditions, with RMSE in \(\lambda E\) at around 85 W and 99 W m\({}^{-2}\) for semi-arid and temperate conditions, and correspondingly around 80 and 70 W m\({}^{-2}\) for H. ESVEP and METRIC yielded more varying results between climates, with METRIC producing more accurate estimates of both H and \(\lambda E\) in semi-arid conditions and ESVEP showing better performance for H in temperate climates and better performance for \(\lambda E\) in semi-arid climates.