Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Daily Reference Crop Evapotranspiration at a Site in the Humid Southeast United States

Yoder, R.; Odhiambo, Lameck O.; Wright, Wesley C.

doi:10.13031/2013.18153

Cited by 116 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They do not recommend its use. Several other papers show the ET0 overestimations using this method, in daily scale, for humid or subhumid climate regions (YODER et al, 2005;LIMA et al, 2013;ALENCAR et al, 2011;ALENCAR et al, 2015). Table 2 shows ET0 estimates for the scales of three, six and ten days for different seasons of the year, aiming to identify the performance of methods in a larger timescale.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference evapotranspiration estimates by means of Hargreaves-samani and Penman-monteith fao methods with missing data in the northwestern Mato Grosso do Sul

Cunha¹,

Venâncio²,

Campos³

et al. 2017

Biosci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:We aimed to assess the performance of different methodologies to estimate the reference evapotranspiration (ET0) in different seasons for at 1, 3, 6 and 10 days for the Northwestern Mato Grosso do Sul. We used a set of daily data obtained from the networks of the Brazilian National Institute of Meteorology for Água Clara, Cassilândia, Chapadão do Sul, Paranaíba and Três Lagoas locations. The meteorological data used were: maximum and minimum air temperatures, wind speed, solar radiation, and relative humidity. The methodologies used for the ET0 estimation were Hargreaves-Samani and Penman-Monteith (PM-FAO) using all the meteorological data needed and missing data on relative humidity, solar radiation and wind speed. To compare ET0 values estimated by means of equations tested against the PM-FAO method we analyzed the parameters of linear regression equation "β 0 " and "β 1 ", coefficient of determination (r²), standard-error of estimate (SEE) and coefficient of performance (c). The PM-FAO method with missing data (relative humidity and wind speed) were the best alternatives to estimate ET0, followed by the PM-FAO method with missing solar radiation data in all timescales during fall and winter seasons. The HargreavesSamani method is not recommended to be used in its original form to estimate ET0 in the Northwestern Mato Grosso do Sul, in none of the timescales and seasons.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference evapotranspiration estimates by means of Hargreaves-samani and Penman-monteith fao methods with missing data in the northwestern Mato Grosso do Sul

Cunha¹,

Venâncio²,

Campos³

et al. 2017

Biosci. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lysimeter data, probably the most precise evaporation 5 measurements available, have been used (e.g. Pereira and Pruitt, 2004;Katerji and Rana, 2011;Yoder et al, 2005), but measurements are scarce and difficult to upscale to larger ecosystems. Pan evaporation data, available in larger volumes and at larger scales, have also been used (Donohue et al, 2010;Zhou et al, 2006;McVicar et al, 2012) but provide a proxy of open-water evaporation, rather than actual ecosystem potential evaporation, and also exhibit biases related to the location, shape and composition of the instrument (Pettijohn and Salvucci, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential evaporation at eddy-covariance sites across the globe

Maes¹,

Gentine²,

Verhoest³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Potential evaporation (Ep) is a crucial variable for hydrological forecast and in drought monitoring systems. However, multiple interpretations of Ep exist, and these reflect a diverse range of methods to calculateEp. As such, a comparison of the performance of these methods against field observations in different global ecosystems is badly needed. In this study, we used eddy-covariance measurements from 107 sites of the FLUXNET2015 database, covering 11 different biomes, to parameterize and compare the main Ep methods and 10 uncover their relative performance. For each site, we extracted the days for which ecosystems are unstressed based on both an energy balance approach and on a soil water content approach. The evaporation measurements during these days were used as reference to validate the different methods to estimate Ep. Our results indicate that a simple radiation-driven method calibrated per biome consistently performed best, with a mean correlation of 0.93, an unbiased RMSE of 0.56 mm day -1, and a bias of -0.02 mm day -1 against in situ measurements of unstressed 15 evaporation. A Priestley and Taylor method, calibrated per biome, performed just slightly worse, yet substantially and consistently better than more complex Penman, Penman-Monteith-based or temperature-based approaches.We show that the poor performance of Penman-Monteith based approaches relates largely to the fact that the unstressed stomatal conductance was assumed constant. Further analysis showed that the biome-specific parameters required for the simple radiation-driven methods are relatively constant per biome. This makes this 20 simple radiation-driven method calibrated per biome a robust method that can be incorporated into models for improving our understanding of the impact of global warming on future global water use and demand, drought severity and ecosystem productivity.

show abstract

“…Both versions of the PM equation are substantially identical for daily calculation steps. Applied and validated under subhumid, semiarid, and arid climatic conditions, they generally achieved good results compared to other methods (Allen et al 1994;Berengena and Gavilán 2005;Garcia et al 2004;Gavilán et al 2007;Howell et al 2000;Perez et al 2006;Yoder et al 2005). On the other hand, these studies also documented a general tendency of the calculations to overestimate smaller ET values compared to measurements and vice versa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Comparison of lysimeter based and calculated ASCE reference evapotranspiration in a subhumid climate

Nolz

Cepuder

Eitzinger

2015

Theor Appl Climatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standardized form of the well-known FAO Penman-Monteith equation, published by the Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE-EWRI), is recommended as a standard procedure for calculating reference evapotranspiration (ET ref ) and subsequently plant water requirements. Applied and validated under different climatic conditions it generally achieved good results compared to other methods. However, several studies documented deviations between measured and calculated reference evapotranspiration depending on environmental and weather conditions. Therefore, it seems generally advisable to evaluate the model under local environmental conditions. In this study, reference evapotranspiration was determined at a subhumid site in northeastern Austria from 2005 to 2010 using a large weighing lysimeter (ET lys ). The measured data were compared with ET ref calculations. Daily values differed slightly during a year, at which ET ref was generally overestimated at small values, whereas it was rather underestimated when ET was large, which is supported also by other studies. In our case, advection of sensible heat proved to have an impact, but it could not explain the differences exclusively. Obviously, there were also other influences, such as seasonal varying surface resistance or albedo. Generally, the ASCE-EWRI equation for daily time steps performed best at average weather conditions. The outcomes should help to correctly interpret ET ref data in the region and in similar environments and improve knowledge on the dynamics of influencing factors causing deviations.

show abstract

Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Daily Reference Crop Evapotranspiration at a Site in the Humid Southeast United States

Cited by 116 publications

References 11 publications

Reference evapotranspiration estimates by means of Hargreaves-samani and Penman-monteith fao methods with missing data in the northwestern Mato Grosso do Sul

Reference evapotranspiration estimates by means of Hargreaves-samani and Penman-monteith fao methods with missing data in the northwestern Mato Grosso do Sul

Potential evaporation at eddy-covariance sites across the globe

Comparison of lysimeter based and calculated ASCE reference evapotranspiration in a subhumid climate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About