Evaporation and transpiration

Ziemer, Robert R.

doi:10.1029/rg017i006p01175

Cited by 12 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 185 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Agricultural and ecological applications capitalized on these developments by including modifications to the original Penman equation to account for canopy stomatal resistance [ Monteith , 1965]. These developments marked a shift in research emphasis from evaporation as a physically controlled process to evaporation as a process that must accommodate the physiological controls imposed by the stomatal guard cells [ Darwin , 1898; Jarvis , 1976; Ziemer , 1979]. Concurrently, the potential sensitivity of the climate system to land surface processes in general and ET in particular was receiving significant attention following Manabe's seminal work [ Manabe et al , 1965].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evapotranspiration: A process driving mass transport and energy exchange in the soil‐plant‐atmosphere‐climate system

Katul

Oren

Manzoni

et al. 2012

Reviews of Geophysics

410

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of evapotranspiration (ET) in the global, continental, regional, and local water cycles is reviewed. Elevated atmospheric CO2, air temperature, vapor pressure deficit (D), turbulent transport, radiative transfer, and reduced soil moisture all impact biotic and abiotic processes controlling ET that must be extrapolated to large scales. Suggesting a blueprint to achieve this link is the main compass of this review. Leaf‐scale transpiration (fe) as governed by the plant biochemical demand for CO2 is first considered. When this biochemical demand is combined with mass transfer formulations, the problem remains mathematically intractable, requiring additional assumptions. A mathematical “closure” that assumes stomatal aperture is autonomously regulated so as to maximize the leaf carbon gain while minimizing water loss is proposed, which leads to analytical expressions for leaf‐scale transpiration. This formulation predicts well the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and increases in D on fe. The case of soil moisture stress is then considered using extensive gas exchange measurements collected in drought studies. Upscaling the fe to the canopy is then discussed at multiple time scales. The impact of limited soil water availability within the rooting zone on the upscaled ET as well as some plant strategies to cope with prolonged soil moisture stress are briefly presented. Moving further up in direction and scale, the soil‐plant system is then embedded within the atmospheric boundary layer, where the influence of soil moisture on rainfall is outlined. The review concludes by discussing outstanding challenges and how to tackle them by means of novel theoretical, numerical, and experimental approaches.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evapotranspiration: A process driving mass transport and energy exchange in the soil‐plant‐atmosphere‐climate system

Katul

Oren

Manzoni

et al. 2012

Reviews of Geophysics

410

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly in this study, some major outliers from a consistent modeled and measured ET course indicated that the influence of rain events goes even beyond the day scale. We also have to assume that the control of VPD (or VPD Â u) on ET is critical after precipitation when both soil-and canopy-intercepted waters contribute to evaporation (e.g., Ziemer, 1979;Olchev et al, 2008). Similarly, frequent precipitation or snowmelt at the onset of the growing season can result in longer periods of high VWC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evapotranspiration (ET) and regulating mechanisms in two semiarid Artemisia-dominated shrub steppes at opposite sides of the globe

Wilske

Kwon

Long

et al. 2010

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For half a century, there have been many attempts to model evaporation and/or ET for climatological, agronomical, and hydrological purposes (Allen et al, 1998;Biftu and Gan, 2000;Federer et al, 1996;Flerchinger et al, 1996;Murakami et al, 2000;Pereira et al, 1999;Stannard, 1993;Wigmosta et al, 1994;Ziemer, 1979). Historically, the majority of evapotranspiration models were developed for well-watered agricultural crops.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modification of the Evapotranspiration Routines in the WEPP Model: Part I

Conroy¹,

Wu²,

Elliot³

2003

2003, Las Vegas, NV July 27-30, 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The physical processes of evaporation and transpiration, collectively termed evapotranspiration, are discussed with respect to the unique conditions specific to forested environments. Forests have significant variations in ET rates due to 1) diurnal, seasonal, and annual climatic fluctuations; 2) spatiotemporal differences in vegetation; 3) evaporation of precipitation intercepted by vegetation, litter, and soil; 4) evaporation from water bodies; and 5) physiographic differences. The earliest methods for computing ET relied on empirical relations between climatic variables and consumptive water use by crops. Later formulations derived potential evaporation by relating solar radiation and temperature to the physical process of latent and sensible heat flux. To generalize Penman's equation for crops that were water-stressed, Monteith incorporated a canopy resistance term to describe the effect that partially closed stomates have on evapotranspiration. Later researchers have modified these equations to account for variable crop density, rainfall interception, bare-soil evaporation, and multiple canopy layers. WEPP primarily uses a modification of Ritchie's method to compute ET. Although WEPP gives the user the option to use either Penman's, Priestly-Taylor's, Hargraves', or Penman-Monteith's equations for calculating ET, the The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed. Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASAE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an ASAE meeting paper EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2003. Title of Presentation. ASAE Paper No. 03xxxx. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact ASAE at hq@asae.org or 269-429-0300 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA). coding for Hargraves' and Penman-Monteith's equations are incomplete, and are therefore turned off. The WEPP model adequately accounts for seasonal and climatic fluctuations, spatiotemporal difference in vegetation, and physiographic differences. Recommended improvements to the WEPP model's ET routine are: 1) completing the coding of the Penman-Monteith equation, 2) computing evaporation of intercepted precipitation, and 3) computing evaporation from water bodies and litter.

show abstract

Evaporation and transpiration

Cited by 12 publications

References 185 publications

Evapotranspiration: A process driving mass transport and energy exchange in the soil‐plant‐atmosphere‐climate system

Evapotranspiration: A process driving mass transport and energy exchange in the soil‐plant‐atmosphere‐climate system

Evapotranspiration (ET) and regulating mechanisms in two semiarid Artemisia-dominated shrub steppes at opposite sides of the globe

Modification of the Evapotranspiration Routines in the WEPP Model: Part I

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About