Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Wood, E. F.

  • Google
  • 2
  • 15
  • 326

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2016The WACMOS-ET project - Part 2: Evaluation of global terrestrial evaporation data sets293citations
  • 2015The WACMOS-ET project – Part 2: Evaluation of global terrestrial evaporation data sets33citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Ershadi, A.
1 / 1 shared
Dolman, A. J.
2 / 2 shared
Mccabe, M. F.
1 / 1 shared
Hirschi, M.
2 / 2 shared
Martens, B.
2 / 2 shared
Miralles, D. Gonzalez
1 / 1 shared
Fernández-Prieto, D.
1 / 1 shared
Michel, D.
2 / 2 shared
Fisher, J. B.
2 / 2 shared
Jung, M.
2 / 4 shared
Mu, Q.
2 / 2 shared
Seneviratne, S. I.
2 / 2 shared
Jiménez, C.
2 / 4 shared
Miralles, D. G.
1 / 1 shared
Fernaìndez-Prieto, D.
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2016
2015

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Ershadi, A.
  • Dolman, A. J.
  • Mccabe, M. F.
  • Hirschi, M.
  • Martens, B.
  • Miralles, D. Gonzalez
  • Fernández-Prieto, D.
  • Michel, D.
  • Fisher, J. B.
  • Jung, M.
  • Mu, Q.
  • Seneviratne, S. I.
  • Jiménez, C.
  • Miralles, D. G.
  • Fernaìndez-Prieto, D.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

The WACMOS-ET project - Part 2: Evaluation of global terrestrial evaporation data sets

  • Ershadi, A.
  • Dolman, A. J.
  • Mccabe, M. F.
  • Hirschi, M.
  • Martens, B.
  • Miralles, D. Gonzalez
  • Fernández-Prieto, D.
  • Michel, D.
  • Fisher, J. B.
  • Jung, M.
  • Mu, Q.
  • Seneviratne, S. I.
  • Jiménez, C.
  • Wood, E. F.
Abstract

The WAter Cycle Multi-mission Observation Strategy - EvapoTranspiration (WACMOS-ET) project aims to advance the development of land evaporation estimates on global and regional scales. Its main objective is the derivation, validation, and intercomparison of a group of existing evaporation retrieval algorithms driven by a common forcing data set. Three commonly used process-based evaporation methodologies are evaluated: the Penman-Monteith algorithm behind the official Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) evaporation product (PM-MOD), the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM), and the Priestley-Taylor Jet Propulsion Laboratory model (PT-JPL). The resulting global spatiotemporal variability of evaporation, the closure of regional water budgets, and the discrete estimation of land evaporation components or sources (i.e. transpiration, interception loss, and direct soil evaporation) are investigated using river discharge data, independent global evaporation data sets and results from previous studies. In a companion article (Part 1), Michel et al. (2016) inspect the performance of these three models at local scales using measurements from eddy-covariance towers and include in the assessment the Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) model. In agreement with Part 1, our results indicate that the Priestley and Taylor products (PT-JPL and GLEAM) perform best overall for most ecosystems and climate regimes. While all three evaporation products adequately represent the expected average geographical patterns and seasonality, there is a tendency in PM-MOD to underestimate the flux in the tropics and subtropics. Overall, results from GLEAM and PT-JPL appear more realistic when compared to surface water balances from 837 globally distributed catchments and to separate evaporation estimates from ERA-Interim and the model tree ensemble (MTE). Nonetheless, all products show large dissimilarities during conditions of water stress and drought and deficiencies in the way evaporation is partitioned into its different components. This observed inter-product variability, even when common forcing is used, suggests that caution is necessary in applying a single data set for large-scale studies in isolation. A general finding that different models perform better under different conditions highlights the potential for considering biome- or climate-specific composites of models. Nevertheless, the generation of a multi-product ensemble, with weighting based on validation analyses and uncertainty assessments, is proposed as the best way forward in our long-term goal to develop a robust observational benchmark data set of continental evaporation.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • surface
  • composite
  • evaporation
  • surface energy