2020
DOI: 10.5194/asr-16-251-2020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computation of daily Penman–Monteith reference evapotranspiration in the Carpathian Region and comparison with Thornthwaite estimates

Abstract: Abstract. The Pannonian Basin Experiment (PannEx) is a Regional Hydroclimate Project (RHP) of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Global Energy and Water Exchanges (GEWEX) Project. A gridded meteorological dataset is available for the PannEx region as part of the CarpatClim database, which consists of homogenized and harmonized daily meteorological observations for several climate parameters with 0.1∘ spatial resolution in the period of 1961–2010. The estimation of the Penman–Monteith reference evapotr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference of variation between Penman ETo method and PM ETo method has R 2 of 0.89 with RMSE of 2.36 mm/day and MBE of -1.12 mm/day at Lahore weather station as shown in the Table 3. indicate that Thornwait ETo method overestimated in 3 months of summer (June, July and August) and underestimated in the remaining months of the year by 14.54% as concluded by Lakatos, et al [43] shown in the Figure 3 (B) and Table 4. The variation difference between Thornwait ETo method and PM ETo method has R 2 of 0.95 with RMSE of 1.16 mm/day and MBE of 0.61 mm/day.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…The difference of variation between Penman ETo method and PM ETo method has R 2 of 0.89 with RMSE of 2.36 mm/day and MBE of -1.12 mm/day at Lahore weather station as shown in the Table 3. indicate that Thornwait ETo method overestimated in 3 months of summer (June, July and August) and underestimated in the remaining months of the year by 14.54% as concluded by Lakatos, et al [43] shown in the Figure 3 (B) and Table 4. The variation difference between Thornwait ETo method and PM ETo method has R 2 of 0.95 with RMSE of 1.16 mm/day and MBE of 0.61 mm/day.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…et al 1998). There are also many methods for the estimation of potential evapotranspiration (E pot ), for instance, temperature as well as both temperature and terrestrial radiation-based methods (McMahon, T.A. et al 2013;Lang, D. et al 2017;Musyimi, P.K.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quality-assured database was arranged in Excel tables. After the data set was cleaned, step by step analysis of ET 0 (FAO 56 methodology, Zotarelli, L. et al 2010;Lakatos, M. et al 2020), calculated evapotranspiration using soil parameters ET and extended with maize coefficient, ET Kc was undertaken using own Visual Basic Macro programmes developed in MS Excel.…”
Section: Different Climatic Regions Of Selected Countiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The PET estimated using the Turc method and the Makkink method were compared with the Penman method for the daily, monthly and annual PET time series. The Penman method has been selected as the reference model for comparison since it is considered as the most physical and reliable method in the verification of other PET methods (Lang et al 2017;Lakatos et al 2020;McColl 2020). As shown in Tables 2-4, the Turc method achieved better statistical performances as compared to the Makkink method for all the stations and the time series studied.…”
Section: Estimation Of Petmentioning
confidence: 99%