Fig 1.
Geographic location referring to the area used to model the evapotranspiration fraction (ETf).
The figure was elaborated using the open source software QGIS [25]—using an RGB image composite generated from the Landsat 8 satellite images that were downloaded from https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Landsat-8 image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey according to [26].
Fig 2.
Methodology used to predict the evapotranspiration fraction (ETf).
Table 1.
Combinations of input variables for each scenario.
Fig 3.
Daily values of evapotranspiration fraction (ETf) predicted by different approaches (scenarios 1 and 2) compared with values obtained by SAFER from Landsat-8 images in the period from 2016 to 2018.
Fig 4.
Application of the Cubist model for prediction of evapotranspiration fraction (ETf) in areas with center pivots compared with values obtained by SAFER with Landsat-8 images for the days 08/06/2019 (DOY218) and 04/02/2020 (DOY093).
Fig 5.
Land use and land cover classification from MapBiomas, collection 5.
The figure was elaborated using the open source software QGIS [25]—using an RGB image composite generated from the Landsat 8 satellite images that were downloaded from https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Landsat-8 image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey according to [26].
Fig 6.
Application of the Cubist model for the prediction of actual evapotranspiration (ETr) in areas with center pivots using sugarcane and soybean crop, obtained through two approaches, (ETrEToHS and ETrEToBrazil), and compared with values obtained by (ETrSAFER) for the days 08/06/2019 (DOY218) and 04/02/2020 (DOY093).