Evaluation and generalization of radiation‐based methods for calculating evaporation

Abstract

Eight radiation-based equations for determining evaporation were evaluated and expressed in ®ve generalized forms. Five evaporation equations (Abtew, Hargreaves, Makkink, Priestley and Taylor and Turc), where each represents one generalized form, were then compared with pan evaporation measured at Changins station in Switzerland.

Evaluation of 13 Empirical Reference Potential Evapotranspiration Equations on the Island of Crete in Southern Greece

“…However, in the southwestern United States (Lu et al 2005), it did not perform as well as other empirical equations. In Switzerland (Xu and Singh 2000), PET Mak did not perform well for estimating of pan evaporation. PET Mak was only moderately successful in a prairie wetland (Rosenberry et al 2004), its fit improving with some modifications to its coefficients.…”

Intercomparison of three methods to estimate evapotranspiration over temperate meadow in Inner Mongolia: Penman–Monteith, Makkink and Priestley–Taylor equation

“…The empirical constants in MK equation especially c 1 depended on factors such as albedo, roughness, relative humidity, wind speed and so on (Xu & Singh ). These values in this study were 0.51 and 0.16 mm/day, which were different from former studies.…”

Calibration of mass transfer-based models to predict reference crop evapotranspiration

“…These formulae were selected due to wide use in previous works as well as their capability to compare with other studies. The best model for each province was modified to increase precision of estimating by calibration of the coefficients (Table 2) similar to the studies of Irmak et al (2003) and Xu and Singh (2000) and using multiplication linear regressions in which the FPM values were used as the dependent variable, and other parameters (Table 2) were the independent variables. In each province, twothird of the data were used for development of the equations and one-third of the data were applied for validation.…”

“…In each province, twothird of the data were used for development of the equations and one-third of the data were applied for validation. This partitioning is due to need to more data for training the models based on previous works (e.g., Xu and Singh 2000). Then, reference crop evapotranspiration calculated using new formulas was compared with FPM, and variations of the errors were investigated.…”