2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Global cross-station assessment of neuro-fuzzy models for estimating daily reference evapotranspiration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the same region, Shiri et al () reported RMSE averages from 0.53 to 0.78 mm day −1 when using gene expressing programming with only T max and T min , and from 0.49 to 0.65 mm day −1 when estimations were performed with a neuro‐fuzzy model, also with T max and T min only. In a later study, Shiri et al () reported a wider range for non‐humid locations than for humid ones. In this study, RMSE ranging 0.22–0.38 mm day −1 were obtained for the same region.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the same region, Shiri et al () reported RMSE averages from 0.53 to 0.78 mm day −1 when using gene expressing programming with only T max and T min , and from 0.49 to 0.65 mm day −1 when estimations were performed with a neuro‐fuzzy model, also with T max and T min only. In a later study, Shiri et al () reported a wider range for non‐humid locations than for humid ones. In this study, RMSE ranging 0.22–0.38 mm day −1 were obtained for the same region.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In relation to the limitations of the approaches in terms of reduced data requirements, previous studies (Landeras et al , ; Shiri et al , , ) showed a better performance of approaches including wind speed and/or humidity compared with simpler approaches such as Makkink or Hargreaves. However these limitations could be reduced by carrying out an efficient calibration process, as Cruz‐Blanco et al () did with the MAK‐Adv approach, or Cristea et al () considering relative humidity and wind speed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MAK-Adv approach uses only temperature and solar radiation as input), by the failure to meet the reference surface requirements (see Section 2.3) and by errors in the input data provided by LSA SAF and ECMWF. In relation to the limitations of the approaches in terms of reduced data requirements, previous studies (Landeras et al, 2008;Shiri et al, 2012Shiri et al, , 2013 showed a better performance of approaches including wind speed and/or humidity compared with simpler approaches such as Makkink or Hargreaves. However these limitations could be reduced by carrying out an efficient calibration process, as Cruz-Blanco et al (2014a) did with the MAK-Adv approach, or Cristea et al (2013b) considering relative humidity and wind speed.…”
Section: Mak-adv Approach For Et O Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the results, it was concluded that the ANFIS method was successful in pan evaporation modelling using climate data (Kisi, ). Global generalized neuro‐fuzzy models provided a more appropriate estimation of ET 0 than empirical models in humid and non‐humid regions of Iran (Shiri et al ., ). The ANFIS and ANN techniques and empirical equations were used to estimate evaporation, and it was concluded that the ANFIS and ANN methods were much better than the empirical equations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%